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 - JOUR T1 - Sea-Level Acceleration Based on U.S. Tide Gauges and Extensions of Previous Global-Gauge Analyses AN - 893273061; 14933933 AB - Without sea-level acceleration, the 20th-century sea-level trend of 1.7 mm/y would produce a rise of only approximately 0.15 m from 2010 to 2100; therefore, sea-level acceleration is a critical component of projected sea-level rise. To determine this acceleration, we analyze monthly-averaged records for 57 U.S. tide gauges in the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level (PSMSL) data base that have lengths of 60--156 years. Least-squares quadratic analysis of each of the 57 records are performed to quantify accelerations, and 25 gauge records having data spanning from 1930 to 2010 are analyzed. In both cases we obtain small average sea-level decelerations. To compare these results with worldwide data, we extend the analysis of Douglas (1992) by an additional 25 years and analyze revised data of Church and White (2006) from 1930 to 2007 and also obtain small sea-level decelerations similar to those we obtain from U.S. gauge records. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Houston, J R AU - Dean, R G AD - Director Emeritus, Engineer Research and Development Center, Corps of Engineers, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, U.S.A. Y1 - 2011/02/23/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Feb 23 SP - 409 EP - 417 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 27 IS - 3 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Global climate change KW - Sea level rise KW - Marine KW - Mathematical models KW - Bases KW - Coastal research KW - Acceleration KW - Tides KW - Sea Level KW - Mean sea level KW - USA KW - Tide gauges KW - Sea level changes KW - O 2010:Physical Oceanography KW - SW 0540:Properties of water KW - Q2 09167:Tides, surges and sea level KW - M2 551.466:Ocean Waves and Tides (551.466) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/893273061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Awaterresources&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Sea-Level+Acceleration+Based+on+U.S.+Tide+Gauges+and+Extensions+of+Previous+Global-Gauge+Analyses&rft.au=Houston%2C+J+R%3BDean%2C+R+G&rft.aulast=Houston&rft.aufirst=J&rft.date=2011-02-23&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=409&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-04-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Mean sea level; Mathematical models; Tide gauges; Acceleration; Sea level changes; Coastal research; Sea level rise; Sea Level; Bases; Tides; USA; Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 29 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129296; 14794-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 28 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129270; 14794-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129270?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 10 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129239; 14794-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 9 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129213; 14794-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129213?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 8 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129185; 14794-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 7 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129169; 14794-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129169?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 3 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873129143; 14794-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 15 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128312; 14794-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 14 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128303; 14794-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 13 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128295; 14794-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 12 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128290; 14794-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 11 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128284; 14794-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 19 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128178; 14794-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 18 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128174; 14794-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128174?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 17 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128161; 14794-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 16 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128153; 14794-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 6 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128148; 14794-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128148?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 5 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128141; 14794-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128141?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 4 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873128136; 14794-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 24 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127554; 14794-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127554?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 23 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127549; 14794-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127549?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 22 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127545; 14794-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 21 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127541; 14794-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127541?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 20 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127531; 14794-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 2 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127522; 14794-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127522?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 1 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127516; 14794-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IDAHO 16, I-84 TO IDAHO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - IDAHO 16, I-84 TO IDAHO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873127418; 14796-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new limited-access divided highway route, the Idaho16 extension, connecting Interstate 84 (I-84) to Idaho 44 (State Street), Ada and Canyon counties, Idaho is proposed. Ada and Canyon counties, comprising the Treasure Valley, are growing in terms of population, employment, and housing. Between 1980 and mid-2007, the population of the two counties increased 115 percent. Proposed planned communities and rapid development in the communities of Emmett, Eagle, Star, Nampa, and Meridian are increasing travel demand on Idaho highways and surrounding regional roadways. Current north-south routes connecting I-84 to Idaho 44 are not adequate to meet the future travel demands of the Treasure Valley. Screening determined that the Idaho 16 extension, which includes a new roadway crossing of the Boise River, was the only one of five initial transportation concepts that would meet the area's transportation needs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to costs, safety, noise, and impacts to the Boise River. Six build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2D, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided highway would be constructed beginning at I-84 and traversing north through the project study area west of the existing McDermott Road. The extension would cross the Boise River, intersect Idaho 44, and terminate 0.81 miles north of Idaho 44 at existing Idaho 16 for an overall length of 7.45 miles. Facilities would include interchanges at Franklin Road, Ustick Road, and US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), and grade-separated crossings (overpasses) at the Union Pacific Railroad, Cherry Lane, and McMillan Road. A 300-foot-wide corridor would provide flexibility for future multimodal operations and travel lane capacity. A 220-foot-wide corridor through the Boise River crossing area corridor would provide width to accommodate the roadway, storm drainage basins, roadside safety features, and utilities. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $490 million and phased construction would be required for completion. Phase 1 would consist of a two-mile, four-lane divided highway connecting Idaho 16 from US 20/26 across the Boise River to Idaho 44. Phase 2 would include constructing the new highway from I-84 to US 20/26, completing all interchanges and overpasses and associated local roadways. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the transportation capacity of the Idaho state highway system within western Ada and eastern Canyon counties and reduce north-south travel times between I-84 and destinations north of the Boise River in the vicinity of the Idaho 16 and Idaho 44 intersection by an estimated 50 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require acquisition of 168 full and partial parcels comprising 682 acres and would entail displacement of 48 residential properties, one farm, and two home-based commercial enterprises. Embankments would result in floodplain encroachments at the Boise River, Five Mile Creek, and Ten Mile Creek. Impacts to wetlands would total 6.8 acres with the majority to marsh and forested wetlands. Approximately 25.8 acres of native habitat and an additional 0.7 acres of aquatic habitat would be lost. Nine properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected. Fifty residences would be adversely affected by noise from the proposed roadway. 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 09-0304D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110040, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Appendices--608 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Boise River KW - Idaho KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127418?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 27 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127189; 14794-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127189?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 26 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127185; 14794-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). [Part 25 of 29] T2 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 873127183; 14794-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127183?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IDAHO 16, I-84 TO IDAHO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - IDAHO 16, I-84 TO IDAHO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 873126855; 14796-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new limited-access divided highway route, the Idaho16 extension, connecting Interstate 84 (I-84) to Idaho 44 (State Street), Ada and Canyon counties, Idaho is proposed. Ada and Canyon counties, comprising the Treasure Valley, are growing in terms of population, employment, and housing. Between 1980 and mid-2007, the population of the two counties increased 115 percent. Proposed planned communities and rapid development in the communities of Emmett, Eagle, Star, Nampa, and Meridian are increasing travel demand on Idaho highways and surrounding regional roadways. Current north-south routes connecting I-84 to Idaho 44 are not adequate to meet the future travel demands of the Treasure Valley. Screening determined that the Idaho 16 extension, which includes a new roadway crossing of the Boise River, was the only one of five initial transportation concepts that would meet the area's transportation needs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to costs, safety, noise, and impacts to the Boise River. Six build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2D, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided highway would be constructed beginning at I-84 and traversing north through the project study area west of the existing McDermott Road. The extension would cross the Boise River, intersect Idaho 44, and terminate 0.81 miles north of Idaho 44 at existing Idaho 16 for an overall length of 7.45 miles. Facilities would include interchanges at Franklin Road, Ustick Road, and US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), and grade-separated crossings (overpasses) at the Union Pacific Railroad, Cherry Lane, and McMillan Road. A 300-foot-wide corridor would provide flexibility for future multimodal operations and travel lane capacity. A 220-foot-wide corridor through the Boise River crossing area corridor would provide width to accommodate the roadway, storm drainage basins, roadside safety features, and utilities. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $490 million and phased construction would be required for completion. Phase 1 would consist of a two-mile, four-lane divided highway connecting Idaho 16 from US 20/26 across the Boise River to Idaho 44. Phase 2 would include constructing the new highway from I-84 to US 20/26, completing all interchanges and overpasses and associated local roadways. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the transportation capacity of the Idaho state highway system within western Ada and eastern Canyon counties and reduce north-south travel times between I-84 and destinations north of the Boise River in the vicinity of the Idaho 16 and Idaho 44 intersection by an estimated 50 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require acquisition of 168 full and partial parcels comprising 682 acres and would entail displacement of 48 residential properties, one farm, and two home-based commercial enterprises. Embankments would result in floodplain encroachments at the Boise River, Five Mile Creek, and Ten Mile Creek. Impacts to wetlands would total 6.8 acres with the majority to marsh and forested wetlands. Approximately 25.8 acres of native habitat and an additional 0.7 acres of aquatic habitat would be lost. Nine properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected. Fifty residences would be adversely affected by noise from the proposed roadway. 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 09-0304D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110040, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Appendices--608 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Boise River KW - Idaho KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126855?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ZOO INTERCHANGE CORRIDOR STUDY, INTERSTATE 94 (I-94) FROM 70TH STREET TO 124TH STREET AND ON US 45 FROM BURLEIGH STREET TO I-894/US 45 AND LINCOLN AVENUE, MILWAUKEE COUNTY, WISCONSIN (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MAY 2009). AN - 858113280; 14794 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of Interstate 94 (I-94) from 124th Street to 70th Street and the US Highway 45/I-894 corridor from Lincoln Avenue to Burleigh Street in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin is proposed. The study area encompasses the Zoo Interchange and its four approaches, referred to as the east, west, north, and south legs. The west terminus of the project is 124th Street, and the east terminus is 70th Street, a distance of about 3.5 miles. The south terminus is Lincoln Avenue, and the north terminus is Burleigh Street, a distance of about 5.5 miles. The scope of the project includes rebuilding the mainline roadway and bridges; modifying interchange access to improve safety and traffic flow; reconstructing POSITIVE IMPACTS: Reconstruction would maintain a key link in the local, state, and national transportation network; address the obsolete design of the study-area freeway system to improve safety; replace deteriorating pavement and bridges; and accommodate future traffic volumes at an acceptable level of service. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way, totaling 55 to 74 acres within the study area, would need to be acquired. Acquisition of six to 31 residences would be required to implement the 6-lane Modernization Alternative, six to 32 residences would be needed for the 8-lane Modernization Alternative, and eight residences and three businesses would be needed for the Reduced Impacts Alternative. The adjacent arterials component would require acquisition of one commercial building containing two businesses. Bridge removal and construction of a new bridge could harm Butler's garter snakes. In some areas, design year noise levels could increase by as much as 14 decibels over existing levels. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0468D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110038, Supplemental Draft EIS--353 pages, Appendices--247 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-09-01-SD KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/858113280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WEST SACRAMENTO LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, CHP ACADEMY AND THE RIVERS EARLY IMPLEMENTATION PROJECTS, YOLO AND SOLANO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 858113276; 14795 AB - PURPOSE: The incremental improvement of levees that protect the city of West Sacramento, Yolo and Solano counties, California is proposed. The city of West Sacramento is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and lies within the natural floodplain of the Sacramento River. Two early implementation projects (EIPs) are proposed by the West Sacramento Area Flood Control Agency (WSAFCA) under a framework known as the West Sacramento Levee Improvements Program (WSLIP). The study area for the WSLIP includes the city and the lands within WSAFCA's boundaries, which encompass portions of the Sacramento River, the Yolo Bypass, the Sacramento Bypass, and the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel. Failure mechanisms and deficiencies have been identified for each of the nine reaches in the WSLIP study area. EIPs are being advanced by WSAFCA to more immediately address flood risk while the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) determines the federal interest in a project being studied under the West Sacramento General Reevaluation Report. This final EIS is a revision of the May 2010 draft EIS and defers program-level analysis for the WSLIP to focus only on the two projects referred to as the CHP Academy EIP and The Rivers EIP. The CHP Academy EIP area is approximately 6,500 feet long and is located on the Sacramento Bypass Levee. Deficiencies at this site are through seepage, geometry, and under-seepage, along with short reaches of instability. The Rivers EIP area is approximately 3,035 feet long and is located on the Sacramento River North Levee, just north of the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers, including part of The Rivers residential development. Levee deficiencies at this site include geometry, stability, through-seepage, and under-seepage. Two action alternatives for each EIP are evaluated. The preferred alternative for levee treatments at the CHP Academy site includes a slurry cutoff wall, waterside slope flattening, and a paved bike trail. The preferred alternative for levee treatments at The Rivers site includes a deep soil mixing cutoff wall, landside slope flattening, a paved bike trail, a paved pedestrian trail, a paved landing, and landside levee embankment ramps. Four potential No Action scenarios are also presented, each based on a different application of the USACE's levee vegetation policy. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Early construction of levee improvements that are politically, socially, economically, and environmentally acceptable would further the goal of providing 200-year flood protection for West Sacramento and would reduce flood risk as quickly as possible. The improvements would provide recreation and open space elements for the city that are compatible with flood improvement actions, preserve and enhance riparian and other native habitats, and ensure continuing federal assistance for levee repairs and maintenance. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activity would create safety, noise, traffic, air quality, and visual impacts. Removal of woody vegetation would impact fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, and aesthetics. Species that could be impacted include western pond turtle, giant garter snake, bats, Swainson's hawk, and western burrowing owl. Unavoidable impacts would include temporary road closures, damage to public utility infrastructure and disruption of service, disturbance of archaeological resources, and disturbance of Native American and historical period human remains. The quality of existing recreation opportunities in the levee corridor at The Rivers site would be reduced. 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 10-0219D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110039, Final EIS--916 pages and maps, Responses to Comments--360 pages, Appendices--1,567 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Dikes KW - Erosion Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Municipal Services KW - Plant Control KW - Recreation Resources KW - Rivers KW - Safety KW - Structural Rehabilitation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Sacramento River KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 408 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/858113276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - IDAHO 16, I-84 TO IDAHO 44 ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY, ADA AND CANYON COUNTIES, IDAHO. AN - 858113266; 14796 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new limited-access divided highway route, the Idaho16 extension, connecting Interstate 84 (I-84) to Idaho 44 (State Street), Ada and Canyon counties, Idaho is proposed. Ada and Canyon counties, comprising the Treasure Valley, are growing in terms of population, employment, and housing. Between 1980 and mid-2007, the population of the two counties increased 115 percent. Proposed planned communities and rapid development in the communities of Emmett, Eagle, Star, Nampa, and Meridian are increasing travel demand on Idaho highways and surrounding regional roadways. Current north-south routes connecting I-84 to Idaho 44 are not adequate to meet the future travel demands of the Treasure Valley. Screening determined that the Idaho 16 extension, which includes a new roadway crossing of the Boise River, was the only one of five initial transportation concepts that would meet the area's transportation needs. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to costs, safety, noise, and impacts to the Boise River. Six build alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Under Alternative 2D, which is the preferred alternative, a four-lane divided highway would be constructed beginning at I-84 and traversing north through the project study area west of the existing McDermott Road. The extension would cross the Boise River, intersect Idaho 44, and terminate 0.81 miles north of Idaho 44 at existing Idaho 16 for an overall length of 7.45 miles. Facilities would include interchanges at Franklin Road, Ustick Road, and US 20/26 (Chinden Boulevard), and grade-separated crossings (overpasses) at the Union Pacific Railroad, Cherry Lane, and McMillan Road. A 300-foot-wide corridor would provide flexibility for future multimodal operations and travel lane capacity. A 220-foot-wide corridor through the Boise River crossing area corridor would provide width to accommodate the roadway, storm drainage basins, roadside safety features, and utilities. The estimated cost of the preferred alternative is $490 million and phased construction would be required for completion. Phase 1 would consist of a two-mile, four-lane divided highway connecting Idaho 16 from US 20/26 across the Boise River to Idaho 44. Phase 2 would include constructing the new highway from I-84 to US 20/26, completing all interchanges and overpasses and associated local roadways. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would increase the transportation capacity of the Idaho state highway system within western Ada and eastern Canyon counties and reduce north-south travel times between I-84 and destinations north of the Boise River in the vicinity of the Idaho 16 and Idaho 44 intersection by an estimated 50 percent. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way would require acquisition of 168 full and partial parcels comprising 682 acres and would entail displacement of 48 residential properties, one farm, and two home-based commercial enterprises. Embankments would result in floodplain encroachments at the Boise River, Five Mile Creek, and Ten Mile Creek. Impacts to wetlands would total 6.8 acres with the majority to marsh and forested wetlands. Approximately 25.8 acres of native habitat and an additional 0.7 acres of aquatic habitat would be lost. Nine properties eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places would be adversely affected. Fifty residences would be adversely affected by noise from the proposed roadway. 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 09-0304D, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110040, Final EIS--638 pages and maps, Appendices--608 pages, February 18, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-ID-EIS-09-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Creeks KW - Easements KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Boise River KW - Idaho KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/858113266?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Boise, Idaho; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: February 18, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 873128269; 14790-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Close proximity of the US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 interchanges causes operational deficiencies and safety concerns due to inadequate traffic weaving distances. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M to meet current design standards, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative D, US 41 would be expanded on a revised alignment that would allow for a freeway split for southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 within the existing interchange footprint. Collector-distributor roads would be constructed on both sides of US 41 between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 to accommodate traffic weaving movements. Minor improvements would be made to existing indirect loop ramp geometry at the I-43/US 41 system interchange to accommodate the wider US 41 mainline. Alternative E would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I/43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. Estimated construction costs of Alternative D and Alternative E are $220 million and $230 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way requirements under alternatives D and E would convert 29 acres and 37 acres of land, respectively. Construction would involve two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 to 55 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. The build alternatives would impact 8.4 to 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. 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: 110034, 233 pages and maps, February 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128269?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126874; 14790-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Close proximity of the US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 interchanges causes operational deficiencies and safety concerns due to inadequate traffic weaving distances. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M to meet current design standards, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative D, US 41 would be expanded on a revised alignment that would allow for a freeway split for southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 within the existing interchange footprint. Collector-distributor roads would be constructed on both sides of US 41 between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 to accommodate traffic weaving movements. Minor improvements would be made to existing indirect loop ramp geometry at the I-43/US 41 system interchange to accommodate the wider US 41 mainline. Alternative E would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I/43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. Estimated construction costs of Alternative D and Alternative E are $220 million and $230 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way requirements under alternatives D and E would convert 29 acres and 37 acres of land, respectively. Construction would involve two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 to 55 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. The build alternatives would impact 8.4 to 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. 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: 110034, 233 pages and maps, February 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 873126867; 14790-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Close proximity of the US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 interchanges causes operational deficiencies and safety concerns due to inadequate traffic weaving distances. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M to meet current design standards, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative D, US 41 would be expanded on a revised alignment that would allow for a freeway split for southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 within the existing interchange footprint. Collector-distributor roads would be constructed on both sides of US 41 between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 to accommodate traffic weaving movements. Minor improvements would be made to existing indirect loop ramp geometry at the I-43/US 41 system interchange to accommodate the wider US 41 mainline. Alternative E would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I/43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. Estimated construction costs of Alternative D and Alternative E are $220 million and $230 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way requirements under alternatives D and E would convert 29 acres and 37 acres of land, respectively. Construction would involve two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 to 55 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. The build alternatives would impact 8.4 to 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. 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: 110034, 233 pages and maps, February 11, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126867?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 41 IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BROWN COUNTY, WISCONSIN. AN - 16372600; 14790 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of a 3.3-mile segment of US Highway 41 from Memorial Drive to County Road M in Brown County, Wisconsin is proposed. Within the project area, US 41 and Interstate 43 (I-43) serve the City of Green Bay, Village of Howard, Village of Suamico, and surrounding communities. US 41 and I-43 provide a vital north-south transportation link between the Chicago-Milwaukee metropolitan area, the Fox River Valley industrial area, and recreational areas in northeastern Wisconsin and upper Michigan. US 41 is a multi-lane backbone highway and a National Highway System route that is also being planned for future conversion to an interstate highway between Milwaukee and I-43 in Green Bay. The existing US 41 freeway and its interchanges were constructed over 35 years ago and do not meet current design standards. Close proximity of the US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 interchanges causes operational deficiencies and safety concerns due to inadequate traffic weaving distances. Proposed improvements include reconstructing the interchanges at US 141/Velp Avenue, I-43, and County Road M to meet current design standards, adding an additional lane in each direction on the US 41 mainline, adding auxiliary lanes along US 41 in both directions, constructing new bridges along US 41 over US 141/Velp Avenue, CN Railroad, Wietor Drive, I-43, and Duck Creek, and replacing the County EB/Lakeview Drive structure and the County Road M structure over US 41. In addition, roundabouts would be constructed at the US 141/Velp Avenue interchange ramp terminals, the US 141/Velp Avenue/Memorial Drive intersection east of US 41, the County Road M interchange ramp terminals, and the frontage road intersections with County Road M. Two build alternatives and a No Build Alternative (Alternative A) are analyzed in this draft EIS. Under Alternative D, US 41 would be expanded on a revised alignment that would allow for a freeway split for southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 within the existing interchange footprint. Collector-distributor roads would be constructed on both sides of US 41 between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 to accommodate traffic weaving movements. Minor improvements would be made to existing indirect loop ramp geometry at the I-43/US 41 system interchange to accommodate the wider US 41 mainline. Alternative E would involve expanding US 41 with a full reconfiguration of the I-43/US 41 interchange. The US 41 expansion would include a revised northbound alignment, and a raised northbound gradeline to accommodate the southbound US 41 to southbound I-43 ramp within the existing interchange footprint and the northbound I-43 to southbound US 41 flyover ramp piers and foundations. All loop ramps would be eliminated and the I/43/US 41 system interchange would be reconstructed with directional ramps. The existing access between US 141/Velp Avenue and I-43 via US 41 would be eliminated and Atkinson Avenue or an alternate route would be used to access southbound I-43 from US 141/Velp Avenue or to access US 141/Velp Avenue from northbound I-43. Estimated construction costs of Alternative D and Alternative E are $220 million and $230 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The reconstructed highway and interchanges would address geometric and operational deficiencies, improve traffic flow and safety, and help meet traffic demand and mobility needs including future conversion of US 41 to an interstate highway. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New right-of-way requirements under alternatives D and E would convert 29 acres and 37 acres of land, respectively. Construction would involve two stream crossings, one stream realignment, and impacts to 54 to 55 acres of wetlands. Habitat for Blanding's turtle, wood turtle, common tern, black-crowned night heron, and cattle egret could be affected. The build alternatives would impact 8.4 to 12.2 acres of park land and conservation areas and require relocation of 13 residences and one business. 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: 110034, 233 pages and maps, February 11, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WISC-EIS-11-01-D KW - Birds KW - Creeks KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wisconsin KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-11&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Madison, Wisconsin; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: February 11, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Desorption of nitramine and nitroaromatic explosive residues from soils detonated under controlled conditions. AN - 840348766; 21038362 AB - Potentially toxic nitroaromatic and nitramine compounds are introduced onto soils during detonation of explosives. The present study was conducted to investigate the desorption and transformation of explosive compounds loaded onto three soils through controlled detonation. The soils were proximally detonated with Composition B, a commonly used military explosive containing 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), and octahydro 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX). Gas-exchangeable surface areas were measured from pristine and detonated soils. Aqueous batches of detonated soils were prepared by mixing each soil with ultrapure water. Samples were collected for 141 d and concentrations of Composition B compounds and TNT transformation products 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene (2ADNT), 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene (4ADNT), and 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-TNB) were measured. The RDX, HMX, and TNT concentrations in detonated soil batches exhibited first-order physical desorption for the first, roughly, 10 d and then reached steady state apparent equilibrium within 40 d. An aqueous batch containing powdered Composition B in water was sampled over time to quantify TNT, RDX, and HMX dissolution from undetonated Composition B particles. The TNT, RDX, and HMX concentrations in aqueous batches of pure Composition B reached equilibrium within 6, 11, and 20 d, respectively. Detonated soils exhibited lower gas-exchangeable surface areas than their pristine counterparts. This is likely due to an explosive residue coating on detonated soil surfaces, shock-induced compaction, sintering, and/or partial fusion of soil particles under the intense heat associated with detonation. Our results suggest that explosive compounds loaded to soils through detonation take longer to reach equilibrium concentrations in aqueous batches than soils loaded with explosive residues through aqueous addition. This is likely due to the heterogeneous interactions between explosive residues and soil particle surfaces. © 2010 SETAC. JF - Environmental toxicology and chemistry AU - Douglas, Thomas A AU - Walsh, Marianne E AU - McGrath, Christian J AU - Weiss, Charles A AU - Jaramillo, Ashley Marie AU - Trainor, Thomas P AD - U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, USA. thomas.a.douglas@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/02// PY - 2011 DA - February 2011 SP - 345 EP - 353 VL - 30 IS - 2 KW - Azocines KW - 0 KW - Explosive Agents KW - Soil KW - Triazines KW - Trinitrotoluene KW - 118-96-7 KW - octogen KW - LLW94W5BSJ KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - Index Medicus KW - Adsorption KW - Azocines -- isolation & purification KW - Trinitrotoluene -- isolation & purification KW - Triazines -- isolation & purification KW - Soil -- analysis KW - Explosive Agents -- isolation & purification UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/840348766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.atitle=Desorption+of+nitramine+and+nitroaromatic+explosive+residues+from+soils+detonated+under+controlled+conditions.&rft.au=Douglas%2C+Thomas+A%3BWalsh%2C+Marianne+E%3BMcGrath%2C+Christian+J%3BWeiss%2C+Charles+A%3BJaramillo%2C+Ashley+Marie%3BTrainor%2C+Thomas+P&rft.aulast=Douglas&rft.aufirst=Thomas&rft.date=2011-02-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=345&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+toxicology+and+chemistry&rft.issn=1552-8618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.383 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-04-25 N1 - Date created - 2011-01-13 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.383 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 29 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128963; 14785-9_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128963?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 28 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128949; 14785-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 27 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128924; 14785-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128924?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 10 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128907; 14785-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128907?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 9 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128894; 14785-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 8 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128874; 14785-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128874?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 7 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128856; 14785-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 5 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128840; 14785-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 4 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128823; 14785-9_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 1 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128187; 14785-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128187?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 31 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128063; 14785-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 30 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128054; 14785-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 15 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128045; 14785-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 14 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128040; 14785-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 13 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128035; 14785-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 12 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873128029; 14785-9_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 11 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127948; 14785-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 26 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127447; 14785-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127447?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 25 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127441; 14785-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 24 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127432; 14785-9_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 23 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127424; 14785-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 18 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127411; 14785-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127411?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 17 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127405; 14785-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127405?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 16 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127401; 14785-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127401?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 22 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127156; 14785-9_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127156?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 21 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127150; 14785-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127150?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 20 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127143; 14785-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 19 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873127138; 14785-9_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127138?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=Aquatic+toxicology+%28Amsterdam%2C+Netherlands%29&rft.issn=1879-1514&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.aquatox.2010.09.011 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 6 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873126612; 14785-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 3 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873126608; 14785-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. [Part 2 of 31] T2 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 873126601; 14785-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - C-111 SPREADER CANAL WESTERN PROJECT, CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN, MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA. AN - 16374274; 14785 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of the C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project within Everglades National Park, Florida is recommended. The C-111 Canal is the southernmost canal of the Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project and is located in south Miami-Dade County. The C-111 Canal courses through extensive marl wetland prairie and coastal mangrove marsh before it empties into Manatee Bay. The canal serves a basin of approximately 100 square miles and functions primarily to provide flood protection and drainage for the agricultural areas to the west and south of Homestead. The canal is the final segment of the South Dade Conveyance System and provides a means to deliver water to Taylor Slough in Everglades National Park and the eastern Panhandle. Taylor Slough is a natural drainage feature of the Everglades that flows southwest into numerous tributaries that eventually empty into Florida Bay. In addition to Everglades National Park, the C-111 Spreader Canal project study area includes the Model Land and the Southern Glades. Seven alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final integrated project implementation report and EIS. Alternative 2DS, the recommended alternative, would create an approximately nine-mile hydraulic ridge adjacent to Everglades National Park utilizing the Frog Pond Detention Area (FPDA) and Aerojet Canal features. The FPDA would include a 225-cubic-feet-per-second (cfs) pump to route water to an approximately 590-acre above-ground detention area; a second 225-cfs pump station would be constructed to route water to the Aerojet Canal. An operable structure would be constructed within the lower C-111 Canal to create groundwater mounding; and operational changes would be made in the current open and close triggers at existing structure S-18C. A permanent plug would be constructed at existing structure S-20A in the L-31E Canal, operational changes would be made at existing structure S-20, and earthen plugs would be constructed at key locations within the C-110 Canal. Ten plugs would be constructed at semi-regular intervals by returning the existing spoil material from the canal banks to the Canal. Any remaining spoil not utilized in construction of the plugs would be placed into the canal to further promote sheetflow and to lessen the effects of any remaining canal segments. Proposed recreation components include a trailhead and an impoundment cell multi-use trail. The levees will serve as raised trails. Total first cost of the recommended plan is estimated at $161 million. As a result of the lengthy process to obtain federal approval of a project implementation report and the need to address further damage to an already fragile ecosystem, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has undertaken a state expedited project program initiative to construct the recommended plan prior to authorization of the federal project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would contribute to the restoration of Everglades National Park and the adjacent southeast Florida ecosystem by improving the quantity, timing, and distribution of water delivered to Florida Bay via Taylor Slough. The intermediate water control features, incremental S-18C changes, L-31 E Canal changes, and C-110 Canal plugs would serve to raise hydroperiods and promote sheet flow within the Southern Glades and Model Land and would preserve existing levels of flood damage reduction. The flexibility of the recommended plan would be instrumental in balancing the limited water flows that are currently available. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Increased water levels would result in alteration of agricultural requirements in the Frog Pond area; and some existing wetlands would be permanently altered. Flood protection would be affected on a total of 11,565 acres of land, including 776 acres of privately-owned lands, and acquisition and easement fees would add to project costs. Construction activities would disrupt local feeding areas of some species and habitat for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow could experience extended hydroperiods exceeding its optimal range. Localized reduction in freshwater flow in the C-111 Canal could precipitate some redistribution of West Indian manatee in estuarine coastal areas. Rehydration of the FPDA could result in risk to fish from the presence of pesticides and metals attributed to past agricultural activity. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (P.L. 101-541). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS for the federal construction project, see 09-0223D, Volume 33, Number 2. For the abstract of the final EIS on regulatory approval of the state construction project, see 09-0289F, Volume 33, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 110029, Final EIS--350 pages, Annexes A-B--705 pages, Annexes C-F--470 pages, Appendix A Part I--496 pages, Appendix A Part II--722 pages, Appendix B through H--546 pages, January 24, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Land Use KW - Birds KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dams KW - Drainage KW - Easements KW - Estuaries KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - National Parks KW - Preserves KW - Pumping Plants KW - Recreation Resources KW - Reservoirs KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Water Quality KW - Water Resources KW - Water Resources Management KW - Weather KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Everglades National Park KW - Florida KW - Florida Bay KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16374274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 24, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigations of transcript expression in fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas) brain tissue reveal toxicological impacts of RDX exposure. AN - 821194276; 20965580 AB - Production, usage and disposal of the munitions constituent (MC) cyclotrimethylenetrinitramine (RDX) has led to environmental releases on military facilities. The chemical attributes of RDX are conducive for leaching to surface water which may put aquatic organisms at risk of exposure. Because RDX has been observed to cause aberrant neuromuscular effects across a wide range of animal phyla, we assessed the effects of RDX on central nervous system (CNS) functions in the representative aquatic ecotoxicological model species, fathead minnow (Pimephales promelas). We developed a fathead minnow brain-tissue cDNA library enriched for transcripts differentially expressed in response to RDX and trinitrotoluene (TNT) exposure. All 4,128 cDNAs were sequenced, quality filtered and assembled yielding 2230 unique sequences and 945 significant blastx matches (E ≤10(-5)). The cDNA library was leveraged to create custom-spotted microarrays for use in transcript expression assays. The impact of RDX on transcript expression in brain tissue was examined in fathead minnows exposed to RDX at 0.625, 2.5, 5, 10mg/L or an acetone-spike control for 10 days. Overt toxicity of RDX in fathead minnow occurred only at the highest exposure concentration resulting in 50% mortality and weight loss. Conversely, Bayesian analysis of microarray data indicated significant changes in transcript expression at concentrations as low as 0.625 mg/L. In total, 154 cDNAs representing 44 unique transcripts were differentially expressed in RDX exposures, the majority of which were validated by reverse transcriptase-quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). Investigation of molecular pathways, gene ontology (GO) and individual gene functions affected by RDX exposures indicated changes in metabolic processes involved in: oxygen transport, neurological function, calcium binding/signaling, energy metabolism, cell growth/division, oxidative stress and ubiquitination. In total, our study indicated that RDX exposure affected molecular processes critical to CNS function in fathead minnow. Published by Elsevier B.V. JF - Aquatic toxicology (Amsterdam, Netherlands) AU - Gust, Kurt A AU - Wilbanks, Mitchell S AU - Guan, Xin AU - Pirooznia, Mehdi AU - Habib, Tanwir AU - Yoo, Leslie AU - Wintz, Henri AU - Vulpe, Chris D AU - Perkins, Edward J AD - US Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory EP-P, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. kurt.a.gust@erdc.usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/01/17/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jan 17 SP - 135 EP - 145 VL - 101 IS - 1 KW - Environmental Pollutants KW - 0 KW - Explosive Agents KW - Triazines KW - Trinitrotoluene KW - 118-96-7 KW - cyclonite KW - W91SSV5831 KW - Index Medicus KW - Gene Expression Profiling KW - Animals KW - Base Sequence KW - Dose-Response Relationship, Drug KW - Molecular Sequence Data KW - Microarray Analysis KW - Bayes Theorem KW - Trinitrotoluene -- toxicity KW - Computational Biology KW - Sequence Analysis, DNA KW - Gene Library KW - Cyprinidae -- metabolism KW - Triazines -- toxicity KW - Environmental Pollutants -- toxicity KW - Explosive Agents -- toxicity KW - Brain -- drug effects KW - Cyprinidae -- genetics KW - Gene Expression Regulation -- drug effects KW - Brain -- metabolism UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821194276?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Aquatic+toxicology+%28Amsterdam%2C+Netherlands%29&rft.atitle=Investigations+of+transcript+expression+in+fathead+minnow+%28Pimephales+promelas%29+brain+tissue+reveal+toxicological+impacts+of+RDX+exposure.&rft.au=Gust%2C+Kurt+A%3BWilbanks%2C+Mitchell+S%3BGuan%2C+Xin%3BPirooznia%2C+Mehdi%3BHabib%2C+Tanwir%3BYoo%2C+Leslie%3BWintz%2C+Henri%3BVulpe%2C+Chris+D%3BPerkins%2C+Edward+J&rft.aulast=Gust&rft.aufirst=Kurt&rft.date=2011-01-17&rft.volume=101&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=135&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+toxicology+%28Amsterdam%2C+Netherlands%29&rft.issn=1879-1514&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.aquatox.2010.09.011 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-03-29 N1 - Date created - 2010-12-14 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aquatox.2010.09.011 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 29 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129648; 14767-1_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 28 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129638; 14767-1_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 27 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129609; 14767-1_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129609?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 26 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129591; 14767-1_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 24 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129571; 14767-1_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129571?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129548; 14767-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129533; 14767-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129496; 14767-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129496?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2001-02-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Step-Down+Analysis%3A+A+Comparison+with+Covariance+Corrections+and+Stepwise+Analysis.&rft.title=Step-Down+Analysis%3A+A+Comparison+with+Covariance+Corrections+and+Stepwise+Analysis.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873129466; 14767-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 25 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128550; 14767-1_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 19 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128530; 14767-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128530?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Bruce&rft.date=1985-04-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128510; 14767-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128510?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128291; 14767-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 20 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873128283; 14767-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1979-01-01&rft.volume=4&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=357&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Educational+Statistics&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 12 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127732; 14767-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127732?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127728; 14767-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1978-01-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=63&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Multiple+Linear+Regression+Viewpoints&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127711; 14767-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127711?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127707; 14767-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=Educational+and+Psychological+Measurement&rft.atitle=The+Relative+Performance+of+Five+Computer+Program+Packages+Which+Perform+Factorial+Univariate+Analysis+of+Covariance&rft.au=Pollane%2C+Leonard+P.%3BSchnittjer%2C+Carl+J.&rft.aulast=Pollane&rft.aufirst=Leonard&rft.date=1977-01-01&rft.volume=37&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=227&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Educational+and+Psychological+Measurement&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127669; 14767-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127669?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127590; 14767-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127552; 14767-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127544; 14767-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127544?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127539; 14767-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127532; 14767-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127532?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873127209; 14767-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127209?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=unknown&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.+%5BPart+22+of+29%5D&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873126599; 14767-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126599?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 29] T2 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 873126591; 14767-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=1978-10-01&rft.volume=13&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=509&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Multivariate+Behavioral+Research&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - GASTON EAST-WEST CONNECTOR PROJECT, I-85 TO I-485 AND NC 160, GASTON AND MECKLENBERG COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 854551168; 14767 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a controlled-access toll road extending 22 miles from I-85 west of Gastonia in Gaston County to I-485, near the Charlotte-Douglas International Airport, in Mecklenburg County, North Carolina is proposed. The project is known both as the Gaston East-West Connector and as the Garden Parkway. Limited crossings of the Catawba River constrain travel between Gaston and Mecklenburg Counties; and within southern Gaston County, south of I-85, a lack of connecting east-west roadways makes travel circuitous and limits mobility. Congestion and frequent incidents on I-85 inhibit regional travel and diminish the ability of I-85 to function as a strategic highway corridor and intrastate corridor. Projected growth in southern Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County would further increase demand for accessibility and connectivity between the two counties. Twelve new location detailed study alternatives (DSAs) and a No-Build Alternative are evaluated in this condensed final EIS. The preferred alternative (DSA 9) would have four 12-foot travel lanes, with a 50-foot median and 12-foot paved inside and outside shoulders. The typical right-of-way would be approximately 280 feet, with additional right-of-way required for interchanges, service roads, and improvements to intersecting roads. In addition, between NC 273 (Southpoint Road) and I-485, there would be an auxiliary lane in each direction. Although not part of the ultimate project, if a fifth and sixth lane are needed in the future, they would be constructed to the inside, resulting in a 26-foot paved median. From west to east, interchanges would be located at I-85, US 29-74, Linwood Road (SR 1133), US 321, Robinson Road (SR 2416), NC 274 (Union Road), NC 279 (South New Hope Road), NC 273 (Southpoint Road), Dixie River Road (SR-1155), and I-485. An interchange at Bud Wilson Road (SR-2423) was proposed for all DSAs in the draft EIS, but was eliminated as part of the preferred alternative. The project would include mainline bridge crossings of Blackwood Creek, an unnamed tributary to Crowders Creek located just east of US 321, Catawba Creek, South Fork Catawba River, and Catawba River. Design refinements to the preferred alternative incorporated since the draft EIS was prepared include modifications to improve access to neighborhoods, reduce impacts, and maintain local connectivity. The mainline design speed is 70 miles per hour (mph), with a planned posted speed limit of 65 mph. Tolls would be collected by an electronic toll collection system that would involve pre-registration and use of a transponder/receiver system that would allow vehicles to move through the toll-collection locations at highway speeds. There would be no cash toll booths. For travelers who do not have a transponder, a video system would capture license plate information and the vehicles registrant would be billed. Total cost of implementing the preferred alternative is estimated at $1.28 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The Gaston East-West Connector would improve east-west transportation mobility in the area around the City of Gastonia, between Gastonia and the Charlotte metropolitan area, and particularly to establish direct access between the rapidly growing areas of southeast Gaston County and western Mecklenburg County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would impact 882 acres of upland forest, 4.1 acres of ponds, 7.5 acres of wetlands, and 38,894 linear feet of perennial streams. Highway right-of-way would cross 91 streams and convert 1,084 acres of prime and important farmland. Destruction of natural communities along the right-of-way would result in the loss of foraging and breeding habitats for various animal species. Right-of-way acquisition would impact 25 neighborhoods and require 348 residential relocations and 37 business relocations. Traffic noise would impact 245 receptors. Construction workers could encounter 21 to 24 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0466D, Volume 34, Number 2. JF - EPA number: 110011, Volume 1 (Final EIS and Appendices A, C-K)--343 pages, Volume 2 (Appendix B, Responses to Comments)--649 pages, Draft EIS and Additional Reports--CD-ROM, January 10, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NC-EIS-09-02-F KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Community Facilities KW - Creeks KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Soils Surveys KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/854551168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=GASTON+EAST-WEST+CONNECTOR+PROJECT%2C+I-85+TO+I-485+AND+NC+160%2C+GASTON+AND+MECKLENBERG+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 10, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 13 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127659; 14761-5_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 12 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127655; 14761-5_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 11 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127650; 14761-5_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1989-01-01&rft.volume=24&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=415&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Multivariate+Behavioral+Research&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 10 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127644; 14761-5_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127638; 14761-5_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=Stephen&rft.date=1977-04-23&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Some+Multivariate+Conceptualizations+in+Nonverbal+Research.&rft.title=Some+Multivariate+Conceptualizations+in+Nonverbal+Research.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127634; 14761-5_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 15 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127084; 14761-5_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127084?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 14 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127080; 14761-5_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 9 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127077; 14761-5_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127077?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 8 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127074; 14761-5_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127074?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 7 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127069; 14761-5_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127067; 14761-5_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127061; 14761-5_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127061?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=1993-01-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=467&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Multivariate+Behavioral+Research&rft.issn=00273171&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127060; 14761-5_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127060?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 15] T2 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873127052; 14761-5_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FUTURE I-70 KANSAS CITY METRO PROJECT, KANSAS CITY, JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI (FIRST TIER CONDENSED FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 16370620; 14761 AB - PURPOSE: Improvement of the Interstate 70 (I-70) corridor from the Kansas state line to east of I-470, including the Kansas City downtown loop, in Jackson County, Missouri is proposed. The 18-mile I-70 corridor and the entire downtown loop are vital to serving regional transportation needs and I-70 in the Kansas City metropolitan area (KC Metro) is also the main artery for traffic bound for major cities and towns in Missouri and the adjacent states of Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and Illinois. I-70 is a four-lane or six-lane divided and fully access-controlled interstate facility. The study area includes all land within 100 feet of the existing highway right-of-way along the corridor and within 300 feet of the existing highway right-of-way at interchanges along I-70. An expanded study area consisting of 1,000 feet on either side of the highway including the downtown loop is being evaluated for land use and socioeconomic studies. In the five year period 2003 to 2007, 20 crashes within the study area involved a fatality. Crash rates between 2003 to 2007 exceeded 150 percent of the statewide average at the downtown loop, westbound from the Benton curve to the downtown loop, eastbound from the Jackson curve to I-435, and at the I-435 interchange. A No Build strategy and three build strategies are evaluated in this first tier condensed final EIS. For the second tier studies, the portion of I-70 under analysis here will be divided into sections of independent utility. The No Build Strategy would include maintenance activities and projects already committed as part of the statewide transportation improvement program. The Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy would include: 1) rebuilding and/or rehabilitating I-70 and the entire downtown loop with a design life of 30 to 50 years; 2) downtown loop lane balance improvements; 3) improved interchanges by addressing ramp lengths, merge areas, weave sections, and bicycle/pedestrian access; 4) interchange additions, consolidations, modifications, or eliminations to improve traffic flow and safety; 5) improvement of the Jackson and Benton curves; 6) rebuilding the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide six lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; 7) the addition of collector distributor roads on I-70 and I-470 through the I-70/I-470 interchange; 8) integrate Operation Green Light on parallel routes; 9) improve incident management response times; and 10) enhanced I-70 express bus service, bus transit on shoulder, and park and ride lots. The Add General Lanes strategy would include the actions of the Improve Key Bottlenecks strategy and would: rehabilitate and/or rebuild I-70 with four lanes in each direction from the downtown loop to I-470; upgrade the Truman Road interchange; rebuild the I-70/I-435 interchange to provide eight lanes on I-70 and six lanes on I-435 through the interchange; and add directional ramps in the southeast and southwest corners of the downtown loop. The Transportation Improvement Corridor Strategy would include all of the parts of the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy plus a dedicated transportation corridor between the downtown loop and I-470. The transportation improvement corridor could be located between the eastbound and westbound lanes or on one side of the I-70 corridor. As currently proposed, the transportation improvement corridor would be barrier-separated from the regular traffic lanes. The transportation improvement corridor could be used for congestion-managed lanes, reversible lanes, high occupancy vehicle lanes, or bus lanes. The preferred strategy is the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy from the downtown loop to east of I-435. The preferred strategy from east of I-435 to I-470 is either the Improve Key Bottlenecks Strategy or the Add General Lanes Strategy. That decision will be left open to the second tier studies. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The improvement strategy would reduce crash rates, remove key bottlenecks, reduce the potential for ramp back-up onto the freeway, improve multi-modal travel times, restore and maintain bridge and pavement conditions, increase safe access across I-70 and the downtown loop for non-motorized travel, and improve the efficiency of freight movement. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred strategy would require the relocation of 228 single-family homes, 19 multi-family buildings, 67 businesses, and four community facilities, based upon the widest strategy footprint carried forward. Three downtown parks could be affected. Impervious surface, rainwater runoff, and noise levels are expected to increase. The build strategies could have adverse effects, including increased noise, on minorities and low-income persons living along the corridor. LEGAL MANDATES: Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0147D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 110005, 205 pages and maps, January 6, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-10-01-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16370620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-06&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=FUTURE+I-70+KANSAS+CITY+METRO+PROJECT%2C+KANSAS+CITY%2C+JACKSON+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI+%28FIRST+TIER+CONDENSED+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 6, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 873127342; 14759-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 873127335; 14759-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&rft.title=C-111+SPREADER+CANAL+WESTERN+PROJECT%2C+CENTRAL+AND+SOUTHERN+FLORIDA+PROJECT+COMPREHENSIVE+EVERGLADES+RESTORATION+PLAN%2C+MIAMI-DADE+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA.&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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 873127330; 14759-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 873127326; 14759-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 873127321; 14759-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CIDRA CORRIDOR FROM CIDRA INDUSTRIAL STREET TO PR-52, PUERTO RICO. AN - 853675523; 14758 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of a new four-mile highway to improve mobility between the municipality of Cidra and the Puerto Rico Strategic Highway Network (PRSHN) is proposed. The project area is in the municipalities of Cidra and Cayey, both of which are located in the mountain ranges of the central eastern region of Puerto Rico, approximately 22 and 25 miles to the south south-west of San Juan, respectively. Both municipalities encompass sensitive natural resource areas and habitat for the endangered Puerto Rican plain pigeon. Cidra has experienced considerable population growth within its urban and suburban township boundaries. Private cars are the principal mode of transportation and the main access to Cidra from the PRSHN is along secondary road PR-172, which connects the PR-52 expressway to Cidra central business district. From PR-52 to La Sierra Sector, PR-172 is a four-lane road characterized by steep slopes, small radius horizontal curves, poor drainage, and absence of pavement markings. From La Sierra Sector to Cidra central business district, PR-172 is a four-lane road with small radius horizontal curves, poor drainage, and absence of pavement markings. The poor roadway geometry contributes to unsafe conditions which are exacerbated when heavy freight traffic utilizes the road. PR-172 is classified as one of the most dangerous roads in Puerto Rico, averaging over three fatalities per year since 2000. In addition to a No Action Alternative, five alignments for new route construction are evaluated in this draft EIS. Current land uses along the new road alternative corridors is predominately rural residential, secondary forest, and pasture zones. Under the build alternatives, a new four-lane road would be constructed beginning at the intersection of PR-7733 and the entrance to the Cidra Industrial Park and ending at three different locations along PR-52. New intersections would be constructed at existing roads. For alternatives C1, C2, and C3, the intersection of PR-1 with PR-184 in Cayey and the intersection of PR-7733 and the industrial entrance in Cidra would be converted to four leg intersections. Alternative C4 would require three new intersections with the new connector at PR-7733, PR-1, and PR-52. Alternative C5 would require an additional intersection at PR-743. Alternative C3, which is the preferred alternative, would require construction of five overpasses or underpasses across existing roads, but would not require bridges over water bodies. Estimated capital costs of the build alternatives range from $117.7 million for Alternative C3 to $141.4 million for Alternative C5. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A new road would improve transportation safety, eliminate congestion, and provide greater levels of service. Improved mobility would enhance economic development. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction impacts would include traffic detours, temporary deterioration of air quality, increased noise and vibration, increased sedimentation and turbidity in water bodies, and temporary diversion of streams and rivers during placement of culverts and bridge piers. Project right-of-way requirements would involve 17 to 31 stream crossings and would impact 87.4 to 126.3 acres of forest, 5.8 to 13.0 acres of wetlands, and 264 to 349 acres of Puerto Rican plain pigeon habitat. Identified pre-Columbian and colonial archaeological resources could be affected. Acquisition of 54 to 69 residential structures and up to seven commercial structures would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 110002, Draft EIS--191 pages, Appendices--6 volumes, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-PR-EIS-10-01-D KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Forests KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Socioeconomic Assessments KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Puerto Rico 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/853675523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CIDRA+CORRIDOR+FROM+CIDRA+INDUSTRIAL+STREET+TO+PR-52%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.title=CIDRA+CORRIDOR+FROM+CIDRA+INDUSTRIAL+STREET+TO+PR-52%2C+PUERTO+RICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Richmond, Virginia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TOOELE COUNTY MIDVALLEY HIGHWAY PROJECT, UTAH. AN - 16373305; 14759 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new highway between State Route 36 (SR-36) and Interstate 80 (I-80) in Tooele County, Utah is proposed. The project study area is located in the Tooele Valley with Sheep Lane roadway to the west and SR-36 to the east. Development trends and plans within Tooele Valley include large-scale residential and commercial expansion within the next five to ten years in Tooele City, Erda Township, Stansbury Park, Lake Point, and Eastern Grantsville. The population in the valley is projected to triple by the design year 2030. Since the mid-1990's, five major studies or plans have identified the need for increased capacity due to increased travel demand. Traffic analyses indicate that by 2030, SR-36, the main north-south route in the project study area will become heavily congested and fail if no improvements are made. The existing I-80 Lake Point interchange will also fail. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are presented in this abbreviated final EIS. The Midvalley Highway West Alternative with Option B is the preferred alternative and would include the following elements: a four lane arterial between SR-36 and SR-112; a four lane freeway between SR-112 and I-80; a re-alignment of SR-138 at Sheep Lane; interchanges with the proposed freeway at I-80, SR-138, and 1000 North, as well as the planned 3400 North (future parkway); structures over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, Erda Way, Sheep Lane, and the Midvalley Trail; and at-grade intersections with SR-112 and SR-36. Due to funding constraints, the Midvalley Highway may be constructed in phases. One scenario would be to build the full project as two arterials, later expanding to a freeway when necessary. Another phasing strategy would be to build the project by segments. The northern segment between SR-138 and I-80 may be constructed first, followed by the southern arterial segment between SR-36 and SR-112, with the segment between SR-112 and SR-138 constructed last. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide increased north-south transportation capacity and thereby reduce anticipated congestion on SR-36 and at the Lake Point interchange with I-80. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would require right-of-way acquisition of 577 acres including194 acres of agricultural lands and 6.7 acres of wetlands. One residential relocation could be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0432D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 110003, Abbreviated Final EIS--132 pages and maps, Conceptual Engineering Drawings--CD-ROM, January 5, 2011 PY - 2011 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-UT-EIS-09-01-F KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Farmlands KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Noise KW - Railroads KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Utah KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-01-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=TOOELE+COUNTY+MIDVALLEY+HIGHWAY+PROJECT%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 - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: January 5, 2011 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The shallow stratigraphy and sand resources offshore of the Mississippi barrier islands AN - 913702960; 2012-009796 AB - Coastal Mississippi is protected by a series of barrier islands ranging in length from 10-25 kilometers that are less than 2 kilometers wide. The majority of these islands comprise the Gulf Islands National Seashore (GUIS), an ecologically diverse shoreline that provides habitat for wildlife including migratory birds and endangered animals. The majority of GUIS is submerged, and aquatic environments include dynamic tidal inlets, ebb-tide deltas, and seagrass beds. The islands are in a state of decline, with land areas severely reduced during the past century by storms, sea-level rise, and human alteration. Morton (2008) estimates that since the mid-1800s up to 64 percent of island surface area has been lost. Heavy damage was inflicted in 2005 by Hurricane Katrina, which passed by as a Category 3 storm and battered the islands with winds of more than 160 kilometers per hour and a storm surge up to 9 meters. Since 2007, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), in collaboration with the National Park Service, has been mapping the seafloor and substrate around the islands as part of the USGS Northern Gulf of Mexico Ecosystem Change and Hazard Susceptibility project. The purpose of these investigations is to characterize the near-surface stratigraphy and identify the influence it may have on island evolution and fate. In 2009, this effort provided the basis for a collaborative effort with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to expand the investigation outside of GUIS boundaries as part of the Mississippi Coastal Improvement Project (MsCIP). The MsCIP program consists of structural, nonstructural, and environmental project elements to restore portions of coastal Mississippi and GUIS affected by storm impact. The project includes the placement of sand along the islands, both on the present beaches and within the littoral zone, to mitigate shoreline erosion and breaching. This action requires the location and assessment of offshore sand or sediment deposits that can provide suitable material for shoreline renourishment. The geophysical and sample information collected by the USGS during geologic investigations provides this information. As part of the MsCIP program, in March 2010 the USGS mapped approximately 300 square kilometers of seafloor around GUIS. Interferometric swath bathymetry, sidescan sonar, and Chirp sub-bottom profiling were used to characterize seafloor elevations, texture, and the underlying stratigraphy. On the basis of this information, potential sediment resources were identified. The most promising offshore deposits for beach restoration include shoals, lowstand valley fill, tidal delta deposits, abandoned barrier deposits, and dredge spoil. Of these, lowstand valley fill deposits and dredge spoil are less desirable; lowstand deposits are buried under a 2- to 4-meter blanket of mud, and dredge spoil volume is small. A relict tidal delta and submerged shoals are the most desirable deposits; the tidal delta contains a large volume of material still exposed on the seafloor, and parts of submerged shoals have modest volume and thin mud cover. JF - Open-File Report - U. S. Geological Survey AU - Twichell, David AU - Pendleton, Elizabeth AU - Baldwin, Wayne AU - Foster, David AU - Flocks, James AU - Kelso, Kyle AU - DeWitt, Nancy AU - Pfeiffer, William AU - Forde, Arnell AU - Krick, Jason AU - Baehr, John Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 63 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA SN - 0196-1497, 0196-1497 KW - United States KW - North America KW - lithostratigraphy KW - barrier islands KW - beach nourishment KW - sand deposits KW - Mississippi KW - geophysical methods KW - shorelines KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - dredged materials KW - acoustical methods KW - Gulf Islands National Seashore KW - sediments KW - side-scanning methods KW - coastal environment KW - bathymetry KW - ocean floors KW - North Atlantic KW - USGS KW - sonar methods KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 06A:Sedimentary petrology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/913702960?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/GeoRef&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=Twichell%2C+David%3BPendleton%2C+Elizabeth%3BBaldwin%2C+Wayne%3BFoster%2C+David%3BFlocks%2C+James%3BKelso%2C+Kyle%3BDeWitt%2C+Nancy%3BPfeiffer%2C+William%3BForde%2C+Arnell%3BKrick%2C+Jason%3BBaehr%2C+John&rft.aulast=Twichell&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=The+shallow+stratigraphy+and+sand+resources+offshore+of+the+Mississippi+barrier+islands&rft.title=The+shallow+stratigraphy+and+sand+resources+offshore+of+the+Mississippi+barrier+islands&rft.issn=01961497&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2014, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 48 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. sects., 1 table, geol. sketch maps N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on Nov. 14, 2011; Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers N1 - Last updated - 2014-09-18 N1 - CODEN - XGROAG N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acoustical methods; Atlantic Ocean; barrier islands; bathymetry; beach nourishment; coastal environment; dredged materials; geophysical methods; Gulf Coastal Plain; Gulf Islands National Seashore; Gulf of Mexico; lithostratigraphy; Mississippi; North America; North Atlantic; ocean floors; sand deposits; sediments; shorelines; side-scanning methods; sonar methods; United States; USGS ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Nitrogen and phosphorus transport in runoff from compost berms on a simulated military training landscape AN - 904468195; 14373476 AB - Compost mulches have potential to significantly offset on- and off-site environmental impacts resulting from mechanical soil disturbances and training manoeuvres on military training ranges. N and P transport was investigated in runoff from compost mulch berms made from various organic waste materials in combination with each other and with soil on a simulated military training landscape in north Alabama in 2007 and 2008. Berms were constructed using composted municipal yard waste (YW), wood chips (WC), pine bark fines (PB), and soil (SL) mixed in eight different proportions. Berms made from 100% soil which had a cumulative runoff PO4-P content of 12 mg L-1 posed the greatest threat of negatively impacting the environment from inorganic P transport. Using compost mulch material with 40% soil to build berms reduced the potential for yard waste and wood chips to cause off-site negative environmental impacts from total dissolved solids, N, and P transport. Berms made from 100% pine bark fines which had cumulative runoff values of 760, 9, 22 and 5 mg L -1, respectively, of TDS, NH4-N, NO3-N, and PO 4-P had the least potential to cause negative off-site environmental impact. To prevent negative impacts of nutrient transport in runoff from berms on training landscapes, the sites need to be well buffered to hydrologically isolate them from adjoining ecosystems. JF - Waste Management & Research AU - Nyakatawa, Ermson Z AU - Mays, David A AU - Britton, Rhonda AU - Pacumbaba, Rudolfo O AU - Howard, H R AU - Svendsen, NG AD - Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, USA, Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, USA. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, USA. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Sciences, Alabama A&M University, Normal, AL, USA. US Army, Engineer Research and Development Center - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL, USA. US Army, Engineer Research and Development Center - Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Champaign, IL, USA, ermson.nyakatawa@aamu.edu Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 188 EP - 196 PB - Sage Publications Ltd., 6 Bonhill St. London EC2A 4PU UK VL - 29 IS - 2 SN - 0734-242X, 0734-242X KW - Environment Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts KW - Soil KW - Compost KW - USA, Alabama KW - Yard wastes KW - mulches KW - Training KW - Landscape KW - bark KW - Environmental impact KW - Military KW - ENA 15:Renewable Resources-Terrestrial KW - P 4000:WASTE MANAGEMENT UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904468195?accountid=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=Waste+Management+%26+Research&rft.atitle=Nitrogen+and+phosphorus+transport+in+runoff+from+compost+berms+on+a+simulated+military+training+landscape&rft.au=Nyakatawa%2C+Ermson+Z%3BMays%2C+David+A%3BBritton%2C+Rhonda%3BPacumbaba%2C+Rudolfo+O%3BHoward%2C+H+R%3BSvendsen%2C+NG&rft.aulast=Nyakatawa&rft.aufirst=Ermson&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=188&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Waste+Management+%26+Research&rft.issn=0734242X&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Compost; Soil; Yard wastes; mulches; Training; bark; Landscape; Environmental impact; Military; USA, Alabama ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Variations in the aluminum:phosphorus binding ratio and alum dosage considerations for Half Moon Lake, Wisconsin AN - 899150745; 15154276 AB - The aluminum:phosphorus binding ratio (Al:P) is an important variable for estimating the Al dosage required to inactivate loosely bound and iron-bound P (redox-P) in sediment for internal P loading control in lakes. For shallow Half Moon Lake, Wisconsin, the Al:P ratio varied in a negative exponential pattern as a function of increasing redox-P concentration. While more Al was needed to inactivate higher concentrations of redox-P, inactivation was more efficient at higher redox-P. The Al:P ratio needed to bind 90% of the redox-P exceeded 150:1 for redox-P concentrations 2.0 mg/g. Competition for binding sites by other constituents in relation to redox-P concentration may be responsible for this pattern. Although organically bound P was not important in Half Moon Lake, it may be in other cases, and lake specific assays are recommended to determine the most appropriate Al dosage. Even then, slower processes of P release from labile organic P and vertical diffusion may not be addressed by higher Al dosages, and more research is warranted. Because redox-P varied horizontally as a result of lake bathymetry, variations in the Al:P ratio were considered for lake-wide alum dose calculation for Half Moon Lake. The estimated lake-wide average dosage of 115 g Al/m2 was high but similar to other recent effective treatments reported in the literature. JF - Lake and Reservoir Management AU - James, William F AD - Eau Galle Aquatic Ecology Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Spring Valley, WI Y1 - 2011///0, PY - 2011 DA - 0, 2011 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 11 New Fetter Lane London EC4P 4EE United Kingdom VL - 27 SN - 1040-2381, 1040-2381 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Ecology Abstracts KW - Reservoir management KW - Reservoir KW - Salinity variations KW - Vertical diffusion KW - Freshwater KW - USA, Wisconsin KW - Lakes KW - Aluminum sulfate KW - Assay KW - Diffusion KW - Competition KW - USA, Wisconsin, Half Moon L. KW - Estimating KW - Bathymetry KW - Sediments KW - Alum KW - Reservoir Management KW - Sediment Load KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - M2 523.3:Earth-Moon System (523.3) KW - SW 0850:Lakes KW - Q2 09264:Sediments and sedimentation KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/899150745?accountid=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=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.atitle=Variations+in+the+aluminum%3Aphosphorus+binding+ratio+and+alum+dosage+considerations+for+Half+Moon+Lake%2C+Wisconsin&rft.au=James%2C+William+F&rft.aulast=James&rft.aufirst=William&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Lake+and+Reservoir+Management&rft.issn=10402381&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F07438141.2011.572232 L2 - http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all~content=a937257114~frm=titlelink LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Reservoir; Bathymetry; Lakes; Aluminum sulfate; Diffusion; Competition; Sediments; Reservoir management; Salinity variations; Vertical diffusion; Reservoir Management; Estimating; Assay; Sediment Load; Alum; USA, Wisconsin, Half Moon L.; USA, Wisconsin; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07438141.2011.572232 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Stone Armor Damage Initiation and Progression Based on the Maximum Wave Momentum Flux AN - 896195165; 14369370 AB - The armor layer on the sea side of a rubble structure must be designed to protect against incident waves during storms. Formulas for armor stability and damage progression have been developed and are widely used for practical applications. However, none of the formulas accounts for the water depth at the toe of the structure explicitly. An alternative approach based on the maximum wave momentum flux at the toe of the structure is proposed in this article. Equations for sizing stable armor stone for constant incident waves and water level are proposed and calibrated using available data. Equations are also developed for determining damage progression in a life-cycle analysis involving varying wave and water level characteristics. The developed equations are calibrated using the damage progression tests conducted previously by the authors and verified using an additional 10 tests conducted for this article. JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Melby, Jeffrey A AU - Kobayashi, Nobuhisa AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, U.S.A. Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 110 EP - 119 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation VL - 27 IS - 1 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - Sustainability Science Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Breakwater KW - revetment KW - stone KW - armor stability KW - armor damage KW - Testing Procedures KW - Damage KW - Mathematical models KW - life cycle analysis KW - Water Level KW - Storms KW - Water levels KW - water levels KW - water depth KW - Wave analysis KW - Water Depth KW - Waves KW - Fluctuations KW - Momentum transfer KW - O 6060:Coastal Zone Resources and Management KW - SW 0810:General KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - Q2 09170:Nearshore dynamics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/896195165?accountid=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=Stone+Armor+Damage+Initiation+and+Progression+Based+on+the+Maximum+Wave+Momentum+Flux&rft.au=Melby%2C+Jeffrey+A%3BKobayashi%2C+Nobuhisa&rft.aulast=Melby&rft.aufirst=Jeffrey&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=110&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-09-00122.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-10-01 N1 - Number of references - 22 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Water levels; Mathematical models; Wave analysis; Momentum transfer; water levels; water depth; life cycle analysis; Storms; Testing Procedures; Damage; Water Depth; Waves; Water Level; Fluctuations DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00122.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Biodegradation of fuel in a karst aquifer AN - 886910538; 2011-074910 JF - Open-File Report - U. S. Geological Survey AU - Minor, Kamalah AU - Muhammad, Raushanah AU - Wade, Tavy AU - Allison, Allyn AU - Byl, Thomas D Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 5 PB - U. S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA SN - 0196-1497, 0196-1497 KW - water quality KW - biodegradation KW - monitoring KW - oxygen KW - toluene KW - pollutants KW - karst hydrology KW - solutes KW - pollution KW - petroleum products KW - hydrochemistry KW - benzene KW - ground water KW - aquifers KW - organic compounds KW - dissolved oxygen KW - hydrocarbons KW - water wells KW - water pollution KW - USGS KW - geochemistry KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/886910538?accountid=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=Open-File+Report+-+U.+S.+Geological+Survey&rft.atitle=Biodegradation+of+fuel+in+a+karst+aquifer&rft.au=Minor%2C+Kamalah%3BMuhammad%2C+Raushanah%3BWade%2C+Tavy%3BAllison%2C+Allyn%3BByl%2C+Thomas+D&rft.aulast=Minor&rft.aufirst=Kamalah&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=5&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Open-File+Report+-+U.+S.+Geological+Survey&rft.issn=01961497&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2010/1291/ https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/browse/usgs-publications/OFR LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - PubXState - VA N1 - SuppNotes - Accessed on July 28, 2011; Prepared in cooperation with the Tennessee State University, College of Engineering, Technology, and Computer Science N1 - Last updated - 2016-10-25 N1 - CODEN - XGROAG N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aquifers; aromatic hydrocarbons; benzene; biodegradation; dissolved oxygen; geochemistry; ground water; hydrocarbons; hydrochemistry; karst hydrology; monitoring; organic compounds; oxygen; petroleum products; pollutants; pollution; solutes; toluene; USGS; water pollution; water quality; water wells ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Vision & strategy: Predictive ecotoxicology in the 21st century AN - 864430052; 14430324 AB - Potentially toxic nitroaromatic and nitramine compounds are introduced onto soils during detonation of explosives. The present study was conducted to investigate the desorption and transformation of explosive compounds loaded onto three soils through controlled detonation. The soils were proximally detonated with Composition B, a commonly used military explosive containing 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT), hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), and octahydro 1,3,5,7-tetranitro-1,3,5,7-tetrazocine (HMX). Gas-exchangeable surface areas were measured from pristine and detonated soils. Aqueous batches of detonated soils were prepared by mixing each soil with ultrapure water. Samples were collected for 141 d and concentrations of Composition B compounds and TNT transformation products 2-amino-4,6-dinitrotoluene (2ADNT), 4-amino-2,6-dinitrotoluene (4ADNT), and 1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (1,3,5-TNB) were measured. The RDX, HMX, and TNT concentrations in detonated soil batches exhibited first-order physical desorption for the first, roughly, 10 d and then reached steady state apparent equilibrium within 40 d. An aqueous batch containing powdered Composition B in water was sampled over time to quantify TNT, RDX, and HMX dissolution from undetonated Composition B particles. The TNT, RDX, and HMX concentrations in aqueous batches of pure Composition B reached equilibrium within 6, 11, and 20 d, respectively. Detonated soils exhibited lower gas-exchangeable surface areas than their pristine counterparts. This is likely due to an explosive residue coating on detonated soil surfaces, shock-induced compaction, sintering, and/or partial fusion of soil particles under the intense heat associated with detonation. Our results suggest that explosive compounds loaded to soils through detonation take longer to reach equilibrium concentrations in aqueous batches than soils loaded with explosive residues through aqueous addition. This is likely due to the heterogeneous interactions between explosive residues and soil particle surfaces. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Villeneuve, Daniel L AU - Garcia-Reyero, Natalia AD - U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Fort Wainwright, Alaska, thomas.a.douglas@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/01/01/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jan 01 SP - 1 EP - 8 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. Lawrence KS 66044 USA VL - 30 IS - 1 SN - 1552-8618, 1552-8618 KW - Environment Abstracts; Toxicology Abstracts KW - Transformation KW - Desorption KW - Residues KW - Surface area KW - hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine KW - Particulates KW - 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene KW - Compaction KW - Soil KW - 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene KW - Heat KW - Vision KW - Dissolution KW - Explosives KW - Military KW - surface area KW - Coatings KW - X 24350:Industrial Chemicals KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/864430052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxicologyabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Vision+%26amp%3B+strategy%3A+Predictive+ecotoxicology+in+the+21st+century&rft.au=Villeneuve%2C+Daniel+L%3BGarcia-Reyero%2C+Natalia&rft.aulast=Villeneuve&rft.aufirst=Daniel&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=15528618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.396 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Transformation; Soil; Desorption; 2,4,6-Trinitrotoluene; Vision; Heat; Surface area; Dissolution; hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine; Explosives; Compaction; Coatings; Residues; Particulates; 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene; Military; surface area DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.396 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Continuity of Instantaneous Wave Overtopping Discharge with Application to Stream Power Concepts AN - 856774513; 14142427 AB - During nine small-scale laboratory experiments simulating combined wave overtopping and storm surge overflow on a trapezoidal levee, time series measurements of flow thickness and velocity were acquired at a location on the levee crest and at a location on the landward-side slope. Flow thickness and velocity were combined to estimate time series of the instantaneous discharge. Comparisons of the calculated overtopping discharge time series at the two locations revealed that the time series of instantaneous discharge was the same at both locations with the only difference being a short phase lag. Individual peaks of the discharge time series were examined, and an empirical expression was determined for the root-mean-squared discharge peak. The largest discharge peaks were overestimated by the Rayleigh distribution. For locations on the landward-side slope where the friction slope is approximately the same as the levee slope, it is possible to derive a stream power probability density function based on the overtopping discharge cumulative exceedance probability. The stream power probability density function may be a useful tool for assessing erosion potential of overtopped earthen levees. JF - Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean Engineering AU - Hughes, Steven A AU - Shaw, Justin M AD - Senior Research Engineer, Coastal and Hydraulic Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180 Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 12 EP - 25 KW - Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Wave overtopping KW - Overflow KW - Water discharge KW - Levees KW - Laboratory tests KW - Offshore engineering KW - Freshwater KW - Time series analysis KW - Streams KW - Waves KW - Slopes KW - Laboratory experiments KW - Overtopping KW - Marine KW - Density KW - River discharge KW - Velocity KW - Probability density function KW - Erosion KW - Storm surges KW - Friction KW - Stream KW - Coastal oceanography KW - Stream Discharge KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - SW 0810:General KW - O 3050:Sediment Dynamics KW - M2 551.5:General (551.5) KW - Q2 09124:Coastal zone management UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/856774513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aaqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Waterway%2C+Port%2C+Coastal+and+Ocean+Engineering&rft.atitle=Continuity+of+Instantaneous+Wave+Overtopping+Discharge+with+Application+to+Stream+Power+Concepts&rft.au=Hughes%2C+Steven+A%3BShaw%2C+Justin+M&rft.aulast=Hughes&rft.aufirst=Steven&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.title=US+41+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BROWN+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Overflow; Offshore engineering; Storm surges; Stream; Levees; River discharge; Overtopping; Erosion; Coastal oceanography; Probability density function; Time series analysis; Laboratory experiments; Friction; Density; Velocity; Waves; Stream Discharge; Slopes; Streams; Marine; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WW.1943-5460.0000057 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Status of the National Wetland Plant List AN - 856398887; 2011-47284 AB - The National Wetland Plant List has undergone important taxonomic and nomenclatural changes since the first and only approved list of wetland plant indicator statuses was created in 1988. Regional and national revisions are ongoing and wetland professionals can participate in recommending changes through an online platform. The author discusses what has happened to date and highlights future efforts. Adapted from the source document. JF - National Wetlands Newsletter AU - Trott, Katherine AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR katherine.l.trott@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 16 EP - 19 PB - Environmental Law Institute, Washington DC VL - 33 IS - 1 SN - 0164-0712, 0164-0712 KW - Environment and environmental policy - Ecology and environmental policy KW - Environment and environmental policy - Geography and cartography KW - Wetlands KW - Environmental policy KW - article UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/856398887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Apais&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=National+Wetlands+Newsletter&rft.atitle=Status+of+the+National+Wetland+Plant+List&rft.au=Trott%2C+Katherine&rft.aulast=Trott&rft.aufirst=Katherine&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=33&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=16&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=National+Wetlands+Newsletter&rft.issn=01640712&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - PAIS Index N1 - Date revised - 2011-03-07 N1 - Last updated - 2016-09-28 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Environmental policy; Wetlands ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Long-term evolution of a long-term evolution model AN - 1832674889; 778707-10 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Hanson, Hans AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 118 EP - 129 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832674889?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Long-term+evolution+of+a+long-term+evolution+model&rft.au=Hanson%2C+Hans%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Hanson&rft.aufirst=Hans&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=118&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-012.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-012.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling regional-scale sediment transport and medium-term morphology change at a dual inlet system examined with the coastal modeling system (CMS); a case study at Johns Pass and Blind Pass, west-central Florida AN - 1832672601; 778707-4 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Wang, Ping AU - Beck, Tanya M AU - Roberts, Tiffany M AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 49 EP - 60 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832672601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Modeling+regional-scale+sediment+transport+and+medium-term+morphology+change+at+a+dual+inlet+system+examined+with+the+coastal+modeling+system+%28CMS%29%3B+a+case+study+at+Johns+Pass+and+Blind+Pass%2C+west-central+Florida&rft.au=Wang%2C+Ping%3BBeck%2C+Tanya+M%3BRoberts%2C+Tiffany+M%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Wang&rft.aufirst=Ping&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=49&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-006.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 31 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-006.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Channel shoaling with deepening of Houma Navigation Channel at Cat Island Pass, Louisiana AN - 1832669506; 778707-24 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Rosati, Julie Dean AU - Lawton, Crorey AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 256 EP - 265 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832669506?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Channel+shoaling+with+deepening+of+Houma+Navigation+Channel+at+Cat+Island+Pass%2C+Louisiana&rft.au=Rosati%2C+Julie+Dean%3BLawton%2C+Crorey%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Rosati&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=256&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-027.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 43 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-027.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Performance of experimental low volume beach fill and clay core dune shore protection project AN - 1832662576; 778707-18 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Wamsley, Ty V AU - Waters, Jeffrey P AU - King, David B AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 202 EP - 210 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832662576?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Performance+of+experimental+low+volume+beach+fill+and+clay+core+dune+shore+protection+project&rft.au=Wamsley%2C+Ty+V%3BWaters%2C+Jeffrey+P%3BKing%2C+David+B%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Wamsley&rft.aufirst=Ty&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=202&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-021.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 13 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-021.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Lack of evidence for onshore sediment transport from deep water at decadal time scales; Fire Island, New York AN - 1832647562; 778707-5 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Kana, Timothy W AU - Rosati, Julie D AU - Traynum, Steven B AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 61 EP - 75 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832647562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Lack+of+evidence+for+onshore+sediment+transport+from+deep+water+at+decadal+time+scales%3B+Fire+Island%2C+New+York&rft.au=Kana%2C+Timothy+W%3BRosati%2C+Julie+D%3BTraynum%2C+Steven+B%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Kana&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=61&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-007.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 70 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-007.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Seasonal change in nearshore and channel morphology at Packery Channel; a new inlet serving Corpus Christi, Texas AN - 1832647277; 778707-7 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Williams, Deidre D AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 86 EP - 97 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832647277?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Seasonal+change+in+nearshore+and+channel+morphology+at+Packery+Channel%3B+a+new+inlet+serving+Corpus+Christi%2C+Texas&rft.au=Williams%2C+Deidre+D%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Williams&rft.aufirst=Deidre&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=86&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-009.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 20 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-009.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Interaction of barrier islands and storms; implications for flood risk reduction in Louisiana and Mississippi AN - 1832646977; 778707-13 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Grzegorzewski, Alisaon Sleath AU - Cialone, Mary A AU - Wamsley, Ty V AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 156 EP - 164 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832646977?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Interaction+of+barrier+islands+and+storms%3B+implications+for+flood+risk+reduction+in+Louisiana+and+Mississippi&rft.au=Grzegorzewski%2C+Alisaon+Sleath%3BCialone%2C+Mary+A%3BWamsley%2C+Ty+V%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Grzegorzewski&rft.aufirst=Alisaon&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=156&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-016.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 40 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-016.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - New ebb-tidal delta at an old inlet, Shark River Inlet, New Jersey AN - 1832644298; 778707-8 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Beck, Tanya M AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 98 EP - 110 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832644298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=New+ebb-tidal+delta+at+an+old+inlet%2C+Shark+River+Inlet%2C+New+Jersey&rft.au=Beck%2C+Tanya+M%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Beck&rft.aufirst=Tanya&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=98&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-010.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 27 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-010.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Monitoring incipient breaching at an artificial inlet; Georgica Pond, New York AN - 1832643935; 778707-9 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Bokuniewicz, Henry J AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - Munger, Sophie AU - Slattery, Michael AU - Coffey, Ruth AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 111 EP - 117 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832643935?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Monitoring+incipient+breaching+at+an+artificial+inlet%3B+Georgica+Pond%2C+New+York&rft.au=Bokuniewicz%2C+Henry+J%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3BMunger%2C+Sophie%3BSlattery%2C+Michael%3BCoffey%2C+Ruth%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Bokuniewicz&rft.aufirst=Henry&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=111&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-011.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-011.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - A non-equilibrium sediment transport model for coastal inlets and navigation channels AN - 1832643641; 778707-3 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Sanchez, Alejandro AU - Wu, Weiming AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 39 EP - 48 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832643641?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=A+non-equilibrium+sediment+transport+model+for+coastal+inlets+and+navigation+channels&rft.au=Sanchez%2C+Alejandro%3BWu%2C+Weiming%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Sanchez&rft.aufirst=Alejandro&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=39&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-005-1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-005-1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Beach nourishment on Troia Peninsula, Portugal AN - 1832642691; 778707-15 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Silveira, Tanya M AU - Kraus, Nicholas C AU - Psuty, Norbert P AU - ? Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 173 EP - 180 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - SPEC.ISS.59 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1832642691?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Beach+nourishment+on+Troia+Peninsula%2C+Portugal&rft.au=Silveira%2C+Tanya+M%3BKraus%2C+Nicholas+C%3BPsuty%2C+Norbert+P%3B%3F&rft.aulast=Silveira&rft.aufirst=Tanya&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=SPEC.ISS.59&rft.issue=&rft.spage=173&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FSI59-018.1 L2 - http://www.jcronline.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2017, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-24 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/SI59-018.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Ice protection of offshore platforms AN - 1777124571; 14198024 AB - Climate change-induced reduction in the extent and duration of sea ice cover, as well as an increase in energy demands, has caused renewed interest in exploring and drilling for oil in Arctic waters. Superstructure icing from sea spray and atmospheric icing in the Arctic may impact offshore platform operations. Though icing has not caused the loss of an offshore platform, it can reduce safety, operational tempo, and productivity. Historically, many ice protection technologies were tested on offshore platforms with little success. However, new technologies and modern versions of old technologies used successfully in aviation, the electric power industry, and ground transportation systems, may be adapted to an offshore environment. This paper provides a framework for assessing the relative threat of ice accumulation types, such as superstructure ice, glaze, rime, frost, and snow, to the safety of platform functions. A review of ice protection strategies for functional platform areas is also provided. JF - Cold Regions Science and Technology AU - Ryerson, Charles C AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, United States charles.c.ryerson@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 97 EP - 110 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 65 IS - 1 SN - 0165-232X, 0165-232X KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Offshore platform KW - Atmospheric icing KW - Superstructure icing KW - Ice protection KW - Safety KW - Arctic KW - Icing KW - Reduction KW - Superstructures KW - Demand KW - Frost KW - Atmospherics KW - Offshore platforms KW - Platforms KW - Marine UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777124571?accountid=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=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.atitle=Ice+protection+of+offshore+platforms&rft.au=Ryerson%2C+Charles+C&rft.aulast=Ryerson&rft.aufirst=Charles&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=97&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.issn=0165232X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coldregions.2010.02.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Marine DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2010.02.006 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An effective approach to rehabilitate damaged barrier system against piping and contaminant flow AN - 1729847099; 2015-105068 AB - The monitoring operation of an older impoundment (such as dams and waste barrier materials) during the service life of the structure cannot be overemphasized. Since older infrastructures seem to be more susceptible to piping and seepage failure, their construction design should be analyzed and monitored at places where a potential problem could occur. Once an impoundment is constructed without adequate filters layers and foundation treatments, then the prevention of piping or seepage may require an effective approach to constructing a cut-off wall to prevent eventual failure. In order to identify and understand theses failure modes, it is important to identify the physical parameters of the impoundment system, such as the zones of various soil gradations, the compaction of these zones, the hydraulic conductivity, the compatibility of the soil formations within and beneath the core or liner, as well as the cohesive and dispersive properties of soils at various location within the structure. Once these parameters are known and quantified, an adequate assessment of the structure's susceptibility to piping or contaminant transport can be established. This type of an analysis will enable the proper design of a cut-off wall and predetermine the effectiveness of its long-term performance. The Vermont Waterbury Dam (built in 1938) is example of seepage related problem that implemented a cut-off wall design to prevent piping paths from undermining the structure. In this case, some forensic sampling had to be performed and the parameters of the soils as just mentioned were key factors in determining the wall design. In this paper, the Waterbury dam rehabilitation is investigated as case studies, in order to better understand how older designs and poor construction of impoundments can lead to piping condition in dams as well as failures in waste barrier systems. The Secant Cut-off wall (constructed at Waterbury Dam) is mentioned as a corrective measure taken for this dam and there is a brief discussion as to how this construction rehabilitation technique can be applied to waste barrier impoundments. Copyright 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. JF - Geotechnical and Geological Engineering AU - Washington, David AU - Rodriguez, Daniel AU - Ogunro, Vincent Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 13 EP - 17 PB - Springer, Dordrecht VL - 29 IS - 1 SN - 0960-3182, 0960-3182 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - embankments KW - monitoring KW - Washington County Vermont KW - reservoirs KW - Winooski River KW - reclamation KW - piping KW - Waterbury Reservoir KW - Vermont KW - seepage KW - walls KW - earth dams KW - Vermont Waterbury Dam KW - secant cutoff walls KW - dams KW - gravity dams KW - rockfill KW - waste disposal KW - disposal barriers KW - 30:Engineering geology KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1729847099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Geotechnical+and+Geological+Engineering&rft.atitle=An+effective+approach+to+rehabilitate+damaged+barrier+system+against+piping+and+contaminant+flow&rft.au=Washington%2C+David%3BRodriguez%2C+Daniel%3BOgunro%2C+Vincent&rft.aulast=Washington&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=13&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Geotechnical+and+Geological+Engineering&rft.issn=09603182&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10706-010-9372-y L2 - http://link.springer.com/journal/10706 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 8 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2015-11-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - dams; disposal barriers; earth dams; embankments; gravity dams; monitoring; piping; reclamation; reservoirs; rockfill; secant cutoff walls; seepage; soil mechanics; United States; Vermont; Vermont Waterbury Dam; walls; Washington County Vermont; waste disposal; Waterbury Reservoir; Winooski River DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10706-010-9372-y ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An investigation of infrared deicing through experimentation AN - 1671537496; 14198022 AB - Traditional deicing of parked aircraft with Aircraft Deicing Fluids (ADF), while effective, has a significant environmental and cost impact, with an estimated 75% of the cost of using ADF attributed to permitting, storage and disposal. In addition, traditional ADF deicing fluids are harmful to helicopter components, and cannot be used for deicing helicopters. Infrared energy is a potential alternative to ADF. However, excessive infrared heating of the laminated composite helicopter blades during deicing could result in blade failure. This report investigates infrared deicing physical processes through experimentation and found excessive infrared heating of the ice substrate is only an issue when the ice thickness is less than 1mm. In addition, this report evaluates IR heater designs for optimizing deicing and recommends future development that may allow hybrid infrared systems to reduce ADF use. JF - Cold Regions Science and Technology AU - Koenig, George G AU - Ryerson, Charles C AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH, United States Y1 - 2011/01// PY - 2011 DA - January 2011 SP - 79 EP - 87 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 65 IS - 1 SN - 0165-232X, 0165-232X KW - Mechanical & Transportation Engineering Abstracts (MT); Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Infrared KW - Ice KW - Deicing KW - Melt KW - Transmission KW - Conduction KW - Aircraft components KW - Aircraft KW - Infrared heating KW - Fluid dynamics KW - Fluids KW - Fluid flow KW - Helicopters UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671537496?accountid=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=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.atitle=An+investigation+of+infrared+deicing+through+experimentation&rft.au=Koenig%2C+George+G%3BRyerson%2C+Charles+C&rft.aulast=Koenig&rft.aufirst=George&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=65&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=79&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Cold+Regions+Science+and+Technology&rft.issn=0165232X&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coldregions.2010.03.009 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coldregions.2010.03.009 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reverse engineering adverse outcome pathways AN - 1671513860; 14430315 AB - The toxicological effects of many stressors are mediated through unknown, or incompletely characterized, mechanisms of action. The application of reverse engineering complex interaction networks from high dimensional omics data (gene, protein, metabolic, signaling) can be used to overcome these limitations. This approach was used to characterize adverse outcome pathways (AOPs) for chemicals that disrupt the hypothalamus-pituitary-gonadal endocrine axis in fathead minnows (FHM, Pimephales promelas). Gene expression changes in FHM ovaries in response to seven different chemicals, over different times, doses, and in vivo versus in vitro conditions, were captured in a large data set of 868 arrays. Potential AOPs of the antiandrogen flutamide were examined using two mutual information-based methods to infer gene regulatory networks and potential AOPs. Representative networks from these studies were used to predict network paths from stressor to adverse outcome as candidate AOPs. The relationship of individual chemicals to an adverse outcome can be determined by following perturbations through the network in response to chemical treatment, thus leading to the nodes associated with the adverse outcome. Identification of candidate pathways allows for formation of testable hypotheses about key biological processes, biomarkers, or alternative endpoints that can be used to monitor an AOP. Finally, the unique challenges facing the application of this approach in ecotoxicology were identified and a road map for the utilization of these tools presented. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Perkins, Edward J AU - Chipman, JKevin AU - Edwards, Stephen AU - Habib, Tanwir AU - Falciani, Francesco AU - Taylor, Ronald AU - Van Aggelen, Graham AU - Vulpe, Chris AU - Antczak, Philipp AU - Loguinov, Alexandre AD - U.S. Army Engineering Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi edward.j.perkins@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011/01/01/ PY - 2011 DA - 2011 Jan 01 SP - 22 EP - 38 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. Lawrence KS 66044 USA VL - 30 IS - 1 SN - 1552-8618, 1552-8618 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Mechanism of action KW - Toxicology KW - Microarray KW - Network inference KW - Adverse outcome pathway KW - Gene expression KW - Biocompatibility KW - Genes KW - Reverse engineering KW - Pathways KW - Surgical implants KW - Networks KW - Monitors KW - Arrays KW - Freshwater UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671513860?accountid=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+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Reverse+engineering+adverse+outcome+pathways&rft.au=Perkins%2C+Edward+J%3BChipman%2C+JKevin%3BEdwards%2C+Stephen%3BHabib%2C+Tanwir%3BFalciani%2C+Francesco%3BTaylor%2C+Ronald%3BVan+Aggelen%2C+Graham%3BVulpe%2C+Chris%3BAntczak%2C+Philipp%3BLoguinov%2C+Alexandre&rft.aulast=Perkins&rft.aufirst=Edward&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=30&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=22&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=15528618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.374 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.374 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Matting Solutions for Low-Volume Roads AN - 1671452887; 16003193 AB - An evaluation of 11 commercial roadway matting systems was conducted to determine their effectiveness in carrying heavy vehicle traffic over loose-sand subgrades. Three of the 11 matting systems were also evaluated under the same loading conditions over soft, fine-grained subgrades. Matting product types included high-density polyethylene, aluminum, fiberglass, and polyester. System installation methods included continuous rolls of material, segmented rolls, and connection of individual panels. The matting products were assembled in test sections of various sizes, which depended on individual panel dimensions and product availability. The mats were trafficked with a 7-ton, six-wheeled U.S. Marine Corps transport truck loaded with a 7-ton payload until 20% of the mat section was no longer reusable or 2,000 truck passes were achieved. Earth pressure cells were installed under nine of the sand test sections to monitor load distributions provided by the matting systems. On the basis of the test results, recommendations are given for selecting the best roadway matting system types for use on low-volume roads with sand or soft, fine-grained subgrades. JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Rushing, Timothy W AU - Howard, Isaac L AD - U S Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Geotech-nical and Structures Laboratory, Airfields and Pavements Branch, CEERD-GM-A, Vicksburg, MS 39180, I L timothy.w.rushing@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 92 EP - 101 PB - Transportation Research Board VL - 2 IS - 2204 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE); Aluminium Industry Abstracts (AI) KW - Roads KW - Sand KW - Automotive components KW - Roadways KW - Rolls KW - Trucks KW - Panels KW - Reusable UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671452887?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Matting+Solutions+for+Low-Volume+Roads&rft.au=Rushing%2C+Timothy+W%3BHoward%2C+Isaac+L&rft.aulast=Rushing&rft.aufirst=Timothy&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-09 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2204-12 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Characterization of oil shale, isolated kerogen, and post-pyrolysis residues using advanced (super 13) C solid-state nuclear magnetic resonance AN - 1316373243; 2013-026218 JF - Abstracts and Program - Society for Organic Petrology. Meeting AU - Jingdong, Mao AU - Birdwell, Justin E AU - Cao, Xiaoyan AU - Chappell, Mark AU - Li, Yuan Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 38 PB - The=Society for Organic Petrology (TSOP), [location varies] VL - 28 SN - 1060-7250, 1060-7250 KW - United States KW - Garfield County Colorado KW - isotopes KW - reclamation KW - stable isotopes KW - Cenozoic KW - oil shale KW - sedimentary rocks KW - pyrolysis KW - carbon KW - thermal maturity KW - nuclear magnetic resonance KW - Anvil Points Mine KW - mines KW - Eocene KW - shale KW - isotope ratios KW - C-13/C-12 KW - Paleogene KW - Mahogany Zone KW - Tertiary KW - formation evaluation KW - Green River Formation KW - kerogen KW - Colorado KW - spectroscopy KW - clastic rocks KW - 29A:Economic geology, geology of energy sources UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1316373243?accountid=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+and+Program+-+Society+for+Organic+Petrology.+Meeting&rft.atitle=Characterization+of+oil+shale%2C+isolated+kerogen%2C+and+post-pyrolysis+residues+using+advanced+%28super+13%29+C+solid-state+nuclear+magnetic+resonance&rft.au=Jingdong%2C+Mao%3BBirdwell%2C+Justin+E%3BCao%2C+Xiaoyan%3BChappell%2C+Mark%3BLi%2C+Yuan&rft.aulast=Jingdong&rft.aufirst=Mao&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=&rft.spage=38&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Abstracts+and+Program+-+Society+for+Organic+Petrology.+Meeting&rft.issn=10607250&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Conference title - Twenty-eighth annual meeting of the Society for Organic Petrology N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2013-03-14 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Anvil Points Mine; C-13/C-12; carbon; Cenozoic; clastic rocks; Colorado; Eocene; formation evaluation; Garfield County Colorado; Green River Formation; isotope ratios; isotopes; kerogen; Mahogany Zone; mines; nuclear magnetic resonance; oil shale; Paleogene; pyrolysis; reclamation; sedimentary rocks; shale; spectroscopy; stable isotopes; Tertiary; thermal maturity; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Relative importance of impervious area, drainage density, width function, and subsurface storm drainage on flood runoff from an urbanized catchment AN - 1282824968; 2013-014927 AB - The literature contains contradictory conclusions regarding the relative effects of urbanization on peak flood flows due to increases in impervious area, drainage density and width function, and the addition of subsurface storm drains. We used data from an urbanized catchment, the 14.3 km (super 2) Dead Run watershed near Baltimore, Maryland, USA, and the physics-based gridded surface/subsurface hydrologic analysis (GSSHA) model to examine the relative effect of each of these factors on flood peaks, runoff volumes, and runoff production efficiencies. GSSHA was used because the model explicitly includes the spatial variability of land-surface and hydrodynamic parameters, including subsurface storm drains. Results indicate that increases in drainage density, particularly increases in density from low values, produce significant increases in the flood peaks. For a fixed land-use and rainfall input, the flood magnitude approaches an upper limit regardless of the increase in the channel drainage density. Changes in imperviousness can have a significant effect on flood peaks for both moderately extreme and extreme storms. For an extreme rainfall event with a recurrence interval in excess of 100 years, imperviousness is relatively unimportant in terms of runoff efficiency and volume, but can affect the peak flow depending on rainfall rate. Changes to the width function affect flood peaks much more than runoff efficiency, primarily in the case of lower density drainage networks with less impermeable area. Storm drains increase flood peaks, but are overwhelmed during extreme rainfall events when they have a negligible effect. Runoff in urbanized watersheds with considerable impervious area shows a marked sensitivity to rainfall rate. This sensitivity explains some of the contradictory findings in the literature. JF - Water Resources Research AU - Ogden, Fred L AU - Raj Pradhan, Nawa AU - Downer, Charles W AU - Zahner, Jon A Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 EP - Citation W12503 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 47 IS - 12 SN - 0043-1397, 0043-1397 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - Baltimore Maryland KW - Baltimore County Maryland KW - numerical models KW - geologic hazards KW - drainage KW - Dead Run Watershed KW - cyclones KW - urban environment KW - GSSHA KW - catchment hydrodynamics KW - runoff KW - natural hazards KW - floods KW - drainage basins KW - hydrodynamics KW - storms KW - Maryland KW - hurricanes KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282824968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Research&rft.atitle=Relative+importance+of+impervious+area%2C+drainage+density%2C+width+function%2C+and+subsurface+storm+drainage+on+flood+runoff+from+an+urbanized+catchment&rft.au=Ogden%2C+Fred+L%3BRaj+Pradhan%2C+Nawa%3BDowner%2C+Charles+W%3BZahner%2C+Jon+A&rft.aulast=Ogden&rft.aufirst=Fred&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2011WR010550 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 49 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2013-04-19 N1 - CODEN - WRERAQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Baltimore County Maryland; Baltimore Maryland; catchment hydrodynamics; cyclones; Dead Run Watershed; drainage; drainage basins; floods; geologic hazards; GSSHA; hurricanes; hydrodynamics; hydrology; Maryland; natural hazards; numerical models; runoff; storms; United States; urban environment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010550 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Visualization and analysis of temporal trends of sand infiltration into a gravel bed AN - 1282822949; 2013-014966 AB - Sand infiltration into gravel frameworks affects a wide range of ecological, geomorphic, and engineering processes. Four flume experiments were conducted with tracer materials to examine how a sand pulse infiltrates into a gravel bed. These experiments were primarily designed to test two hypotheses: (1) that vertical gradational trends of interstitial deposits are due to differential transport of finer sand in suspended load (hydraulic sorting) and (2) that the formation of a bridge layer (a thin layer of infiltrated sediments that become lodged in shallow pore throats) precludes subsequent infiltration into a gravel framework. Several sand colors were sequentially introduced into a flume containing a gravel substrate. After the experiments were conducted bed cores were collected and separated into vertical layers including surface layers composed primarily of sand that was transporting as bed load before the experiment was terminated and interstitial deposits in the gravel framework. Sand from each layer was sieved and measured. The color distribution of each grain class of each vertical layer of each core was measured to determine the temporal provenance of the interstitial deposits. Results supported the occurrence of hydraulic sorting. Older (finer) sand particles were disproportionately prevalent in interstitial deposits when compared to bed load samples. The experiments did not support the second hypothesis. Substantial secondary infiltration occurred after the initial formation of a bridge layer. More secondary infiltration was measured for systems with higher d (sub 15Gravel) /d (sub 85Sand) ratios and when bed shear was sufficient to mobilize the gravel. JF - Water Resources Research AU - Gibson, S AU - Heath, R AU - Abraham, D AU - Schoellhamer, D Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 EP - Citation W12601 PB - American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC VL - 47 IS - 12 SN - 0043-1397, 0043-1397 KW - hydrology KW - sand KW - experimental studies KW - sediment transport KW - clastic sediments KW - siltation KW - flume studies KW - visualization KW - transport KW - infiltration KW - gravel-bed streams KW - tracers KW - sediments KW - sorting KW - streams KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1282822949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Water+Resources+Research&rft.atitle=Visualization+and+analysis+of+temporal+trends+of+sand+infiltration+into+a+gravel+bed&rft.au=Gibson%2C+S%3BHeath%2C+R%3BAbraham%2C+D%3BSchoellhamer%2C+D&rft.aulast=Gibson&rft.aufirst=S&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Water+Resources+Research&rft.issn=00431397&rft_id=info:doi/10.1029%2F2011WR010486 L2 - http://www.agu.org/journals/wr/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2013, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by, and/or abstract, Copyright, American Geophysical Union, Washington, DC, United States N1 - Date revised - 2013-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 26 N1 - PubXState - DC N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables N1 - Last updated - 2013-02-05 N1 - CODEN - WRERAQ N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - clastic sediments; experimental studies; flume studies; gravel-bed streams; hydrology; infiltration; sand; sediment transport; sediments; siltation; sorting; streams; tracers; transport; visualization DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010486 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Modeling Support of the St. Johns River Project, Jacksonville, FL AN - 1093443794; 15783945 AB - The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers District, Jacksonville (SAJ) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer and Development Center (ERDC) performed three model studies of St. Johns River, Jacksonville FL during the period of 2005 - 2010. The model studies included two- and three-dimensional hydrodynamic modeling of currents and a real-time ship simulator study. The first two model studies focused upon the Mile Point area where the St. Johns Bar Pilots Association restricts the movement of larger vessels during ebb tide due to strong crosscurrents. The crosscurrents occur from Pablo Creek on the south and Sisters Creek on the north. The third model study was to evaluate SAJ's GRR-2 plan to deepen and widen the entire deep-draft Federal project. The final result was a channel design allowing larger ships access to JAXPORT docks and reduce or eliminate tidal delays. JF - Coastal Engineering Practice AU - Webb, Dennis W AU - Sylvester, Philip T AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer and Development Center, CEERD-HN-N, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS. Y1 - 2011///0, PY - 2011 DA - 0, 2011 SP - 931 EP - 944 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Rivers and streams KW - Florida KW - Harbors KW - Hydrodynamics KW - Ships KW - Coastal engineering KW - Simulators KW - Port installations KW - Freshwater KW - Streams KW - Ship design KW - Coastal morphology KW - Nearshore bars KW - Coastal inlets KW - Rivers KW - Creek KW - Tides KW - Model Studies KW - Channels KW - USA KW - Docks KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - SW 6010:Structures KW - Q2 09167:Tides, surges and sea level UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1093443794?accountid=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=Coastal+Engineering+Practice&rft.atitle=Modeling+Support+of+the+St.+Johns+River+Project%2C+Jacksonville%2C+FL&rft.au=Webb%2C+Dennis+W%3BSylvester%2C+Philip+T&rft.aulast=Webb&rft.aufirst=Dennis&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=931&rft.isbn=9780784411902&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering+Practice&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F41190%28422%2977 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Rivers; Coastal engineering; Simulators; Coastal morphology; Coastal inlets; Port installations; Nearshore bars; Creek; Ship design; Channels; Ships; Docks; Hydrodynamics; Streams; Tides; Model Studies; USA; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/41190(422)77 ER - TY - BOOK T1 - Population Trends of Flathead Catfish, Channel Catfish, and Blue Catfish in Impounded and Unimpounded Reaches of the Upper Mississippi River (1993-2007) AN - 1069201656; 17140753 AB - Using Long Term Resource Monitoring Program data collected from impounded (Pool 26) and unimpounded (Open River) reaches of the upper Mississippi River, we investigated population dynamics of flathead catfish Pylodictis olivaris, channel catfish Ictalurus punctatus, and blue catfish I. furcatus from random sites located in side channel border (SCB) and main channel border (MCB) habitats. Objectives were to (1) compare trends (1993-2007) of three catfishes collected in Pool 26 and Open River reaches of the upper Mississippi River, and (2) provide needed information to managers on population dynamics through time using a binary gear approach of active (i.e., daytime electrofishing) and passive gears (hoopnetting). Active gears resulted in a higher catch per unit effort (CPUE) of all cat-fishes in each habitat-reach combination as compared to passive gears. Passive gears resulted in negligible catches of blue catfish and flathead catfishes (e.g., mean of <1 fish/net night). Catch per unit effort using active gear resulted in a greater number of channel catfish captured in Pool 26 compared to the Open River, with Open River SCB habitat having the lowest CPUE in most years. Blue catfish in the Open River had a higher CPUE using active gear as compared to Pool 26, with the Open River MCB having the greatest CPUE. Flathead catfish had a higher CPUE in MCB habitat compared to SCB habitat, with the Open River MCB having the highest CPUE in most years. However, declining trends in flathead catfish appears to be occurring in Open River habitats while trends in flathead catfish appear to be slightly increasing in Pool 26. The most common length-classes captured were substock and stock-sized fish regardless of habitat, species, or reach. Trends for channel catfish were easily determined due to high catch rates; however, more monitoring and enhanced sampling is needed to accurately assess flathead catfish and blue catfish trends and to accurately determine demographics for all three species. JF - American Fisheries Society Symposium AU - McCain, KNS AU - Ridings, J W AU - Phelps, Q AU - Hrabik, R A Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 13 EP - 153 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Environment Abstracts KW - Population Dynamics KW - Pools KW - Freshwater KW - Freshwater fish KW - Population dynamics KW - Catch/effort KW - Ictalurus punctatus KW - Demography KW - Fishery management KW - Sampling KW - River basin management KW - Environmental monitoring KW - Rivers KW - Habitat KW - Catches KW - Channels KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Aquatic Habitats KW - Pylodictis olivaris KW - Fish KW - Catfish KW - Monitoring KW - ENA 06:Food & Drugs KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition KW - Q1 08442:Population dynamics KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1069201656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Aqualine&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=book&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=McCain%2C+KNS%3BRidings%2C+J+W%3BPhelps%2C+Q%3BHrabik%2C+R+A&rft.aulast=McCain&rft.aufirst=KNS&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=141&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=Population+Trends+of+Flathead+Catfish%2C+Channel+Catfish%2C+and+Blue+Catfish+in+Impounded+and+Unimpounded+Reaches+of+the+Upper+Mississippi+River+%281993-2007%29&rft.title=Population+Trends+of+Flathead+Catfish%2C+Channel+Catfish%2C+and+Blue+Catfish+in+Impounded+and+Unimpounded+Reaches+of+the+Upper+Mississippi+River+%281993-2007%29&rft.issn=08922284&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-09-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-05-05 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Flowable Fill for Rapid Pavement Repair AN - 1019626555; 16330447 AB - The federal, state, and local highway authorities in the United States invested $3.9 billion in the rehabilitation of roughly 8,000 mi of pavement in 2008. This significant investment emphasizes the importance of ensuring that rehabilitation techniques perform well to help reduce the high annual cost for repairs. The repair of pavement base layers with compacted lifts of crushed aggregate requires specialized labor and equipment, contributes significantly to total construction time, is very difficult to perform-particularly in restricted access areas-and often results in a poorly constructed repair and loss in performance. Flowable fill technology has shown some success when used for backfilling patches and utility cut repairs. The purpose of this paper is to present performance and cost advantages of using preblended flowable fill for rapid repair of damaged areas in highway and airfield pavements. Eleven commercially available flowable fill blends were evaluated with laboratory and field testing methods. The laboratory evaluation consisted of standard material characterization testing including compressive strength, flowability, hardening time, and excavatability. Field testing included constructing and trafficking simulated utility cuts and full-depth patches in existing pavements. An examination of structural capacity, surface deformation, and visible surface distress was conducted for each repair at regular traffic intervals. In addition, construction time, difficulty, and cost were compared with those of a traditional aggregate repair. Testing results indicate that backfilling utilities and patches in pavements with flowable fill reduce the potential for premature failure, reduce construction time, and reduce total project cost while increasing repair performance. JF - Transportation Research Record AU - Griffin, Jonathon R AU - Ray Brown, E AD - U S Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180 jonathon.r.griffin@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2011 PY - 2011 DA - 2011 SP - 88 EP - 94 PB - Transportation Research Board IS - 2235 SN - 0361-1981, 0361-1981 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Backfilling KW - Construction costs KW - Construction equipment KW - Cost engineering KW - Highways KW - Pavements KW - Repair KW - Utilities UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1019626555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aenvironmentalengabstracts&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.atitle=Flowable+Fill+for+Rapid+Pavement+Repair&rft.au=Griffin%2C+Jonathon+R%3BRay+Brown%2C+E&rft.aulast=Griffin&rft.aufirst=Jonathon&rft.date=2011-01-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=2235&rft.spage=88&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Transportation+Research+Record&rft.issn=03611981&rft_id=info:doi/10.3141%2F2235-10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-06-01 N1 - Number of references - 15 N1 - Last updated - 2013-05-09 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.3141/2235-10 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 31 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127626; 14753-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 30 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127620; 14753-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 29 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127613; 14753-3_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127613?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 28 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127607; 14753-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 16 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127567; 14753-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127567?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 15 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127562; 14753-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127562?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 14 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127560; 14753-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127560?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 13 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127555; 14753-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 12 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127551; 14753-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127551?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 11 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127546; 14753-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 9 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127542; 14753-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 8 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127536; 14753-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 7 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127533; 14753-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127533?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 6 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127528; 14753-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 5 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127523; 14753-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 4 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127519; 14753-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 22 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127457; 14753-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127457?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 21 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127449; 14753-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 20 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127445; 14753-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127445?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 19 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127439; 14753-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127439?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 18 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127431; 14753-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 17 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127427; 14753-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 27 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127313; 14753-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 26 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127306; 14753-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 25 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127303; 14753-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127303?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 24 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127296; 14753-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127296?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 23 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127290; 14753-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127290?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 10 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873127286; 14753-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127286?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.title=ZOO+INTERCHANGE+CORRIDOR+STUDY%2C+INTERSTATE+94+%28I-94%29+FROM+70TH+STREET+TO+124TH+STREET+AND+ON+US+45+FROM+BURLEIGH+STREET+TO+I-894%2FUS+45+AND+LINCOLN+AVENUE%2C+MILWAUKEE+COUNTY%2C+WISCONSIN+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MAY+2009%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 3 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873126940; 14753-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 2 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873126931; 14753-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126931?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. [Part 1 of 31] T2 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 873126922; 14753-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.title=WHITTON+EXPRESSWAY%2C+JEFFERSON+CITY%2C+COLE+COUNTY%2C+MISSOURI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WHITTON EXPRESSWAY, JEFFERSON CITY, COLE COUNTY, MISSOURI. AN - 16379619; 14753 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to existing portions of US 50/63 (Rex Whitton Expressway) and the local street network in Cole County, Missouri are proposed. The Whitton Expressway is located in central Jefferson City near the downtown business district, the Missouri State Penitentiary (MSP) redevelopment site, the Old Munichberg and Central East Side neighborhoods, and the campus of Lincoln University. Transitions in roadway types from freeway to urban arterial and back to freeway lead to unsatisfactory levels of service and associated traffic congestion, especially during peak periods. The Whitton Expressway portion of the study corridor extends three miles and is bounded on the west by Bolivar Street, just east of the Tri-level interchange, and on the east by the Eastland Drive interchange. The area from 300 feet south of the Whitton Expressway north to McCarty Street is included. Access to the MSP site from portions of downtown and the Central East Side between McCarty Street and the prison is also being examined. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to historic properties, neighborhood cohesion, pedestrian access, and accessibility to businesses and institutions. In addition to a No Build Alternative, three mainline Whitton Expressway concepts and three prison access concepts are considered as reasonable alternatives in this final EIS. Under Alternative 4, an elevated viaduct starting just east of Broadway and returning to grade near the Jackson overpass would be constructed. Alternative 5 would involve construction of a parkway with a wide median and additional travel lanes; an optional elevated structure would carry through traffic separate from local traffic if deemed necessary. Under Alternative 6, a north-south overpass at Madison Street would be constructed and improvements would be made at Jefferson and Monroe. Under Alternative A, a new half-diamond interchange on Whitton Expressway at Lafayette Street would be constructed and Lafayette would be widened to four or five lanes. Alternative D would utilize a new half-diamond interchange at Lafayette and realign Clark Avenue. Alternative G is a slight permutation of Alternative D and would involve construction of a full diamond interchange at Lafayette. The preferred alternative is a combination of Alternative 6, the Madison Street overpass option, and Alternative G, a new full diamond interchange at Lafayette Street and a realigned Clark Avenue. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would improve roadway capacity, traffic operations, and traffic safety. Structural engineering would reduce the opportunities for head-on crashes and add room for recovery or avoidance of obstacles. Access to MSP, Lincoln University, and Jefferson City High School would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Full build-out of the preferred alternative would: directly affect historic resources such as the Craftsman/Monastery district and the property of the Lincoln University President's House; acquire the Quinn Chapel AME church; alter access to several downtown businesses; fully acquire 25 residences and four business properties; and partially acquire 16 residences and four business properties. Right-of-way acquisition and construction would impact a minority population and take an historic district associated with the African American Foot neighborhood. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0138D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100483, draft EIS--180 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-MO-EIS-09-03-F KW - Central Business Districts KW - Environmental Justice KW - Highways KW - Historic Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Parks KW - Prisons KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Missouri KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 401 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379619?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-18&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.title=IDAHO+16%2C+I-84+TO+IDAHO+44+ENVIRONMENTAL+STUDY%2C+ADA+AND+CANYON+COUNTIES%2C+IDAHO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Jefferson City, Missouri; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873129625; 14752-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this draft programmatic EIS is tiered from the Final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. The construction and operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System altered the Missouri River. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). In addition, two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with current levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat and adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would also benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100482, Draft EIS--536 pages, Appendices--659 pages, December 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 873129080; 14752-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this draft programmatic EIS is tiered from the Final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. The construction and operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System altered the Missouri River. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). In addition, two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with current levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat and adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would also benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100482, Draft EIS--536 pages, Appendices--659 pages, December 27, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MECHANICAL CREATION AND MAINTENANCE OF EMERGENT SANDBAR HABITAT IN THE RIVERINE SEGMENTS OF THE UPPER MISSOURI RIVER, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, SOUTH DAKOTA. AN - 16369202; 14752 AB - PURPOSE: A program to mechanically create and maintain emergent sandbar habitat (ESH) within 440 miles of the upper Missouri River to support least tern and northern Great Plains piping plover populations in Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota is proposed. The ESH program is being implemented by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as a part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) and this draft programmatic EIS is tiered from the Final EIS and Record of Decision for the Master Water Control Manual Review and Update issued in March 2004. The construction and operation of the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System altered the Missouri River. Six dams and their associated lakes affect the geomorphologic, hydrologic, ecological, social, cultural, and economic conditions along the river and the hydrologic and geomorphic processes that would have created habitat for least terns and piping plovers are greatly reduced. The least tern was federally listed as endangered in 1985 and the piping plover as threatened in 1986. Construction of ESH is proposed for five riverine segments downstream from four of these dams: 1) the 203.5-mile Fort Peck segment from Fort Peck Dam to the headwaters of Lake Sakakawea near Williston, North Dakota; 2) the 85.9-mile Garrison segment form Garrison Dam to the Lake Oahe headwaters south of Bismarck, North Dakota; 3) the 35-mile Fort Randall segment from Fort Randall Dam to upstream of the Niobrara River confluence; 4) the 17-mile Lewis & Clark segment from upstream of the Niobrara River confluence to Lewis and Clark Lake headwaters; and 5) the 58.1-mile Gavins Point segment from Gavins Point Dam to Ponca, Nebraska. The alternatives considered represent a range of ESH acreage goals from Alternative 1 (11,886 acres) through Alternative 5 (1,315 acres). In addition, two no action alternatives are considered: the existing ESH program with current levels of construction of approximately 150 acres per year, and the No Program Alternative. The preferred alternative would employ an adaptive management implementation process (AMIP) whereby actions would be progressively implemented until the desired biological response is attained and sustained. While the exact number of acres needed to be constructed and replaced is uncertain at this time, the impacts associated with constructing and replacing up to the acreage of Alternative 3.5 (4,370 acres) are assessed. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Program implementation would benefit least tern and piping plover populations by supplementing natural habitat and adult bird numbers are projected to increase over the life of the program under all action alternatives. New ESH would also benefit other shore birds and many native fish species, as well as amphibians and reptiles. The preferred AMIP alternative would provide a flexible approach to meeting identified biological metrics for the least tern and piping plover. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Including borrow areas, an estimated 2.75 acres would be impacted for each acre of ESH constructed. Implementation of many of the larger alternatives would risk construction-related effects to the endangered pallid sturgeon. Activities in the Fort Randall and Gavins Point segments could result in significant adverse impacts on resources within the Missouri National Recreational River, part of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the final EIS on the Missouri River Main Stem Reservoir System Master Water Control Manual, see 04-0363F, Volume 28, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100482, Draft EIS--536 pages, Appendices--659 pages, December 27, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Rivers KW - Sand KW - Threatened Species (Animals) KW - Vegetation Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Management KW - Missouri River KW - Montana KW - Nebraska KW - North Dakota KW - South Dakota KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16369202?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-27&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.title=MECHANICAL+CREATION+AND+MAINTENANCE+OF+EMERGENT+SANDBAR+HABITAT+IN+THE+RIVERINE+SEGMENTS+OF+THE+UPPER+MISSOURI+RIVER%2C+MONTANA%2C+NEBRASKA%2C+NORTH+DAKOTA%2C+SOUTH+DAKOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 27, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MCPHERSON, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MCPHERSON, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 873130037; 14749-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the lands and facilities of Fort McPherson, Georgia are proposed. The 487-acre Fort McPherson installation lies four miles southwest of downtown Atlanta and seven miles northwest of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The fort is the site of 2.3 million gross square feet of building space, including 102 family housing units. The base also features an 18-hole golf course that comprises 200 acres within the installation. In its 2005 report to the President, the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended the following actions related to Fort McPherson: closure of the facility; relocation of the headquarters of the U.S. Army Forces Command and the headquarters of the U.S. Army Reserve Command to Pope Air Force Base (AFB), North Carolina; relocation of the Third Army headquarters to Shaw AFB, South Carolina; relocation of the Installation Management Agency Southeast Region headquarters and the U.S. Network Enterprise Technology Command Southeast Region headquarters to Fort Eustis, Virginia; and relocation of the Army Contracting Agency Southern Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The BRAC Commission recommendations must be effected no later than September 15, 2011. Methods for property disposal available to the U.S. Army include transfer to another federal agency, public benefit conveyance, economic development conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. Under the proposed action, six buildings at the fort, including the Lawrence Joel Army Health and Dental Clinic, would be transferred to the Veterans Administration (VA). In addition, the Army is working with both credit unions on Fort McPherson, which have requested conveyance of their currently leased property. The Army proposes to dispose of the remaining surplus property for redevelopment in accordance with the reuse plan developed by the McPherson Planning Local Redevelopment Authority (MPLRA). The MPLRA has expressed a preference for mixed-use sustainable development at a higher level of intensity than baseline conditions exhibit. Mixed-use developments could include housing, office and retail space, light industrial facilities, recreational facilities, public amenities, community facilities, and the like. Of the 487 acres within the form boundary, 422 acres are considered suitable for lease due to the fact that they are relatively free of contaminants; the remaining 65 acres are not suitable for transfer by deed until further evaluation and/or remedial action has been undertaken to clean areas affected by contaminated soils. This final EIS presents alternative disposal methods and reuse alternatives. The preferred alternative is for early disposal of the property as a single entity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mixed-use development as proposed by the MPLRA would provide for a socioeconomically integrated community development to serve as a bedroom community with respect to the city of Atlanta. The disposition of buildings to the VA would provide a relatively inexpensive means of expanding the agency's capacity in the Atlanta area, an area providing residence to thousands of veterans. Cleanup of the 65 acres affected by contaminated soils would prevent further degradation to the regional aquifer and allow the sites to be developed for beneficial purposes. The transfer would add to the local property tax base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expected intensification of site development would disturb and displace soils and vegetation and result in the regular generation of municipal wastes and air and water pollutants. Historically significant buildings and archaeological resource sites within the installation would no longer receive the protection of the U.S. Army, leaving the structures open to possible modification or demolition and the archaeological sites open to disturbance or displacement. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501), Base Closure and Realignment Act of 2005, and Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0427D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100479, 762 pages and maps, December 17, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Industrial Parks KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fort McPherson KW - Georgia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2011-02-23&rft.volume=27&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=409&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-10-00157.1 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - DISPOSAL AND REUSE OF FORT MCPHERSON, FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA. AN - 16379570; 14749 AB - PURPOSE: The disposal and reuse of the lands and facilities of Fort McPherson, Georgia are proposed. The 487-acre Fort McPherson installation lies four miles southwest of downtown Atlanta and seven miles northwest of Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. The fort is the site of 2.3 million gross square feet of building space, including 102 family housing units. The base also features an 18-hole golf course that comprises 200 acres within the installation. In its 2005 report to the President, the Base Closure and Realignment (BRAC) Commission recommended the following actions related to Fort McPherson: closure of the facility; relocation of the headquarters of the U.S. Army Forces Command and the headquarters of the U.S. Army Reserve Command to Pope Air Force Base (AFB), North Carolina; relocation of the Third Army headquarters to Shaw AFB, South Carolina; relocation of the Installation Management Agency Southeast Region headquarters and the U.S. Network Enterprise Technology Command Southeast Region headquarters to Fort Eustis, Virginia; and relocation of the Army Contracting Agency Southern Region headquarters to Fort Sam Houston, Texas. The BRAC Commission recommendations must be effected no later than September 15, 2011. Methods for property disposal available to the U.S. Army include transfer to another federal agency, public benefit conveyance, economic development conveyance, negotiated sale, competitive sale, exchanges for military construction, conservation conveyance, and conveyance for cost of environmental remediation. Under the proposed action, six buildings at the fort, including the Lawrence Joel Army Health and Dental Clinic, would be transferred to the Veterans Administration (VA). In addition, the Army is working with both credit unions on Fort McPherson, which have requested conveyance of their currently leased property. The Army proposes to dispose of the remaining surplus property for redevelopment in accordance with the reuse plan developed by the McPherson Planning Local Redevelopment Authority (MPLRA). The MPLRA has expressed a preference for mixed-use sustainable development at a higher level of intensity than baseline conditions exhibit. Mixed-use developments could include housing, office and retail space, light industrial facilities, recreational facilities, public amenities, community facilities, and the like. Of the 487 acres within the form boundary, 422 acres are considered suitable for lease due to the fact that they are relatively free of contaminants; the remaining 65 acres are not suitable for transfer by deed until further evaluation and/or remedial action has been undertaken to clean areas affected by contaminated soils. This final EIS presents alternative disposal methods and reuse alternatives. The preferred alternative is for early disposal of the property as a single entity. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Mixed-use development as proposed by the MPLRA would provide for a socioeconomically integrated community development to serve as a bedroom community with respect to the city of Atlanta. The disposition of buildings to the VA would provide a relatively inexpensive means of expanding the agency's capacity in the Atlanta area, an area providing residence to thousands of veterans. Cleanup of the 65 acres affected by contaminated soils would prevent further degradation to the regional aquifer and allow the sites to be developed for beneficial purposes. The transfer would add to the local property tax base. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The expected intensification of site development would disturb and displace soils and vegetation and result in the regular generation of municipal wastes and air and water pollutants. Historically significant buildings and archaeological resource sites within the installation would no longer receive the protection of the U.S. Army, leaving the structures open to possible modification or demolition and the archaeological sites open to disturbance or displacement. LEGAL MANDATES: Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-501), Base Closure and Realignment Act of 2005, and Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 471 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0427D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100479, 762 pages and maps, December 17, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Buildings KW - Commercial Zones KW - Community Development KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Industrial Parks KW - Military Facilities (Army) KW - Property Disposition KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Soils KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Fort McPherson KW - Georgia KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Compliance KW - Base Closure and Realignment Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Property and Administrative Services Act of 1949, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379570?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-17&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MCPHERSON%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.title=DISPOSAL+AND+REUSE+OF+FORT+MCPHERSON%2C+FULTON+COUNTY%2C+GEORGIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Mobile, Alabama; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 17, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129557; 14744-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129557?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129512; 14744-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129512?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129254; 14744-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129230; 14744-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129230?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129211; 14744-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128902; 14744-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128902?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128883; 14744-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128274; 14744-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873128022; 14744-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127940; 14744-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127940?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127934; 14744-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127706; 14744-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 24 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127601; 14744-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127601?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127598; 14744-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127514; 14744-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127514?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127507; 14744-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127501; 14744-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127501?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873127371; 14744-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126912; 14744-4_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126886; 14744-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126886?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126883; 14744-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126883?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 29 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126877; 14744-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126877?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126864; 14744-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126864?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126859; 14744-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126859?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126851; 14744-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126812; 14744-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126812?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126809; 14744-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126804; 14744-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126801; 14744-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 33 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126797; 14744-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126797?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126484; 14744-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126479; 14744-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126479?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126471; 14744-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126471?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126375; 14744-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126364; 14744-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 39] T2 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873126347; 14744-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST COUNTY SUBSTATION / TULE WIND / ENERGIA SIERRA JUAREZ GEN-TIE PROJECTS, SAN DIEGO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 849427868; 14744 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of the East County (ECO) Substation, the Tule Wind, and the Energia Sierra Juarez U.S. Generator-Tie (ESJ Gen-Tie) projects in southeastern San Diego County, California are proposed. San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) filed an application for a permit to construct the proposed ECO Substation, primarily on private lands, near the unincorporated communities of Jacumba and Boulevard, approximately 70 miles east of downtown San Diego and 0.5 mile north of the U.S.-Mexico border. The Tule Wind and ESJ Gen-Tie projects are included as connected actions. In addition, the Campo, Manzanita, and Jordan wind projects are evaluated at a programmatic level as components of a wider project because they would interconnect to the proposed Boulevard Substation rebuild. The proposed ECO Substation project would include: a 500/230/138-kilovolt (kV) substation; a short loop-in of the existing Southwest Powerlink (SWPL) transmission line to the proposed substation; a 13.3-mile 138-kV transmission line running between the proposed substation and the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; and the rebuild of the existing Boulevard Substation. The proposed Tule Wind project would consist of up to 134 wind turbines in the 1.5 to 3.0-megawatt (MW) range generating up to 200 MW of electricity and would be located in the McCain Valley. In addition to wind turbines and associated generator step-up transformers, the project would include: a 34.5 kV overhead and underground collector cable system linking the wind turbines to the collector substation; a five-acre collector substation and a five-acre operations and maintenance (O&M) facility; two meteorological towers and one sonic detecting and ranging unit; a 9.6-mile 138-kV overhead transmission line running south from the collector to be interconnected with the rebuilt Boulevard Substation; newly constructed access roads and temporarily widened and improved existing access roads. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would interconnect with the proposed ECO Substation and would be constructed on three to five 150-foot lattice towers or 170-foot steel monopoles, extending south from the point of interconnection to the U.S.-Mexico international border. Only renewable energy would be transmitted via the gen-tie line. This draft EIS considers: one alternative ECO Substation site and three transmission design, routing, and undergrounding alternatives; five configuration and design alternatives for the Tule Wind project; and three alternatives for the ESJ Gen-Tie project. Four No Project/No Action alternatives are also considered. The ECO Substation Alternative Site, which would shift the location 700 feet east of the proposed site, and the ECO Partial Underground 138-kV transmission route are preferred. A four-mile portion of the proposed 138-kV line between the SWPL and Boulevard Substation would be installed underground. For the Tule Wind project, Alternative 5, Reduction in Turbines, combined with Alternative 2, Gen-Tie Route 2 Underground with Collector Substation/O&M Facility on Rough Acres Ranch, is preferred. Under this alternative, 62 turbine locations out of the 134 proposed would be removed, the length of the proposed 138-kV gen-tie line would be reduced from 9.6 miles to four miles, and the O&M and collector substation would be developed on a more disturbed site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed ECO Substation would provide an interconnection hub for renewable generation along SDG&Es existing SWPL 500-kV transmission line. In addition to accommodating the regions planned renewable energy generation, the project would also provide a second source for the southeastern 138-kV transmission system that avoids the vulnerability of common structure outages, which would increase the reliability of electrical service for Boulevard, Jacumba, and surrounding communities. The proposed Tule Wind project would generate 200 MW of electricity from a renewable source. The ESJ Gen-Tie project would have the capacity to import up to 1,250 MW of renewable energy generated in northern Baja California, Mexico, and transmit to the existing SWPL transmission line in California. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would generate dust and exhaust emissions of criteria pollutants and toxic air contaminants. Even with avoidance and mitigation, impacts to Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat would occur. Transmission lines and wind turbines would pose a risk of electrocution and collision to listed bat and bird species, including golden eagle. Construction noise would constitute a substantial temporary disturbance. The project would substantially impact visual resources and would create a new source of light and glare. The presence of project facilities would increase risk of a wildfire and reduce effectiveness of firefighting. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100474, Volume 1--1,190 pages and maps, Volume 2--864 pages and maps, Appendices--CD-ROM, December 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-62 KW - Air Quality KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Electric Generators KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Sources KW - Fire Protection KW - Indian Reservations KW - Insects KW - Noise KW - Transmission Lines KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/849427868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=EAST+COUNTY+SUBSTATION+%2F+TULE+WIND+%2F+ENERGIA+SIERRA+JUAREZ+GEN-TIE+PROJECTS%2C+SAN+DIEGO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Moreno Valley, California; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 868223620; 14743-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 868223610; 14743-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223610?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 868223600; 14743-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 868223585; 14743-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223585?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 868223569; 14743-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223569?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Fractionating nanosilver: importance for determining toxicity to aquatic test organisms. AN - 821194210; 21082828 AB - This investigation applied novel techniques for characterizing and fractionating nanosilver particles and aggregates and relating these measurements to toxicological endpoints. The acute toxicity of eight nanosilver suspensions of varying primary particle sizes (10-80 nm) and coatings (citrate, polyvinylpyrrolidone, EDTA, proprietary) was assessed using three aquatic test organisms (Daphnia magna, Pimephales promelas, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata). When 48-h lethal median concentrations (LC50) were expressed as total silver, both D. magna and P. promelas were significantly more sensitive to ionic silver (Ag(+)) as AgNO(3) (mean LC50 = 1.2 and 6.3 μg/L, respectively) relative to a wide range in LC50 values determined for the nanosilver suspensions (2 -126 μg/L). However, when LC50 values for nanosilver suspensions were expressed as fractionated nanosilver (Ag(+) and/or <4 nm particles), determined by ultracentrifugation of particles and confirmed field-flow-fractograms, the LC50 values (0.3-5.6 μg/L) were comparable to the values obtained for ionic Ag(+) as AgNO(3). These results suggest that dissolved Ag(+) plays a critical role in acute toxicity and underscores the importance of characterizing dissolved fractions in nanometal suspensions. JF - Environmental science & technology AU - Kennedy, Alan J AU - Hull, Matthew S AU - Bednar, Anthony J AU - Goss, Jennifer D AU - Gunter, Jonas C AU - Bouldin, Jennifer L AU - Vikesland, Peter J AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180, United States. Alan.J.Kennedy@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/12/15/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Dec 15 SP - 9571 EP - 9577 VL - 44 IS - 24 KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - 0 KW - Silver KW - 3M4G523W1G KW - Index Medicus KW - Animals KW - Daphnia -- drug effects KW - Cyprinidae KW - Particle Size KW - Chlorophyta -- drug effects KW - Toxicity Tests, Acute KW - Aquatic Organisms -- drug effects KW - Metal Nanoparticles -- toxicity KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- toxicity KW - Silver -- toxicity KW - Metal Nanoparticles -- ultrastructure KW - Chemical Fractionation -- methods UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/821194210?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.atitle=Fractionating+nanosilver%3A+importance+for+determining+toxicity+to+aquatic+test+organisms.&rft.au=Kennedy%2C+Alan+J%3BHull%2C+Matthew+S%3BBednar%2C+Anthony+J%3BGoss%2C+Jennifer+D%3BGunter%2C+Jonas+C%3BBouldin%2C+Jennifer+L%3BVikesland%2C+Peter+J%3BSteevens%2C+Jeffery+A&rft.aulast=Kennedy&rft.aufirst=Alan&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=44&rft.issue=24&rft.spage=9571&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+science+%26+technology&rft.issn=1520-5851&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021%2Fes1025382 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-02-10 N1 - Date created - 2010-12-14 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/es1025382 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FREEPORT HARBOR CHANNEL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT, BRAZORIA COUNTY, TEXAS. AN - 16385249; 14743 AB - PURPOSE: Channel improvements to alleviate navigation problems at Freeport Harbor, a deep-draft waterway from the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) to the city of Freeport, Texas, are proposed. The project is located on the mid- to upper Texas coast in Brazoria County and encompasses the communities of Surfside, Quintana, Oyster Creek City, and Freeport. The port has one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world and the ship channel is lined with industry. Freeport's refining capacity represents six percent of the Texas capacity and Port Freeport terminals provide pipeline transmittal to underground storage facilities of the U.S. strategic petroleum reserve, to crude oil distribution hubs in Texas City and Jones Creek, as well as connections to Houston and the Midwest. The Freeport Harbor Project as authorized in the 1950s provided for an entrance channel (composed of the Outer Bar and Jetty channels) of 38-foot depth and 300-foot width from the Gulf to inside the jetties, and for interior channels of 36-foot depth and 200-foot width up to and including the Upper Turning Basin. The relocation and deepening of the Jetty Channel to a 45-foot depth and 400-foot width and the Outer Bar Channel to a 47-foot depth and 400-foot width, with an extension of 4.6 miles into the Gulf was authorized in 1978 and completed in 1993. The maximum ship dimensions currently permitted at Freeport Harbor are 825-foot length overall, 145-foot maximum beam, and 42-foot draft. In a separate permit action, Port Freeport undertook efforts to widen the Freeport Harbor Channel Outer Bar and Jetty channels (Widening Project) to 600 feet and a Record of Decision was signed in February 2009. The proposed Freeport Harbor Channel Improvement Project includes deepening and widening of the Freeport Harbor Channel and associated turning basins (except Brazos Harbor), from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels, through the lower turning basin up to the Brazosport and Upper Turning basins, and upstream through the Stauffer Channel to the Stauffer Turning Basin. Alternatives evaluated in this draft EIS include different channel depth and width alternatives, alternatives for placement of the dredged material, and two no action alternatives. The first no action alternative assumes that the Widening Project has been constructed and the second was formulated to describe future project conditions if the permit action did not occur. The National Economic Development (NED) Plan Alternative proposes to widen the Outer Bar, Jetty, and Main channels to 540 feet and deepen to 60 feet, widen the Lower Stauffer Channel to 300 feet and deepen it to 45 feet, and to dredge the Upper Stauffer Channel to 25 feet deep in lieu of restoring it to its authorized dimensions of 30 feet deep by 200 feet wide. Construction of the NED Alternative would generate 23.2 million cubic yards (mcy) of dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel is expected to generate a total of 190.5 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. The Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) Alternative, which is also the tentatively recommended plan, proposes to deepen the Outer Bar Channel into the Gulf to 57 feet, deepen the Jetty Channel from the Lower Turning Basin to the end of the jetties in the Gulf to 55 feet mean low tide (MLT), widen the Entrance Channel reach (comprised of the Jetty and Outer Bar channels) to 600 feet, deepen from the Lower Turning Basin to the Brazosport Turning Basin to 55 feet, deepen from above the Brazosport Turning Basin through the Upper Turning Basin to 50 feet, deepen and widen the lower 3,700 feet of the Stauffer Channel to a depth of 50 feet and a width of 300 feet, and dredge the remainder of the Stauffer Channel to 25 feet MLT. Construction of the LPP Alternative would generate 17.3 mcy of new work dredged material. Maintenance of the deepened and widened channel would generate an anticipated 175.9 mcy of maintenance dredged material over the 50-year evaluation period. New material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels during construction would be placed in the existing New Work Ocean Dredged Material Disposal site (ODMDS), and the remainder of the new work material would be placed in existing upland confined placement area (PA) 1 and proposed PAs 8 and 9. Material dredged from the Outer Bar and Jetty channels and the Lower Turning Basin during maintenance cycles would be placed in the existing Maintenance Material ODMDS and maintenance material from the remainder of the channel would be placed in PAs 1, 8, and 9. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would: eliminate operational constraints, including one-way traffic, daylight-only operations for larger vessels, and restrictions when winds exceed 20 knots or crosscurrents exceed 0.5 knot; facilitate the control and flow of ship traffic including larger vessels; and reduce shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of confined PAs and proposed mitigation would convert 21 acres of forest, 39 acres of ephemeral wetlands, and 382 acres of prime farmland to other uses. Dredging activities could result in the incidental take of federally protected sea turtles. Implementation of the tentatively recommended plan would increase air emissions in the Houston-Galveston-Brazoria region, which is currently classified as a severe nonattainment area for ozone. Estimated emissions of nitrous oxides would exceed standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.), Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Flood Control Act of 1970 (P.L. 91-611). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and final EISs for the Port Freeport Channel Widening Project, see 06-0634D, Volume 30, Number 4 and 08-0110F, Volume 32, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100473, Draft EIS (Volume I)--324 pages, EIS Appendices (Volume II) --566 pages, Draft Feasibility Study (Volume I)--269 pages, Feasibility Study Appendices (Volume II) --345 pages, December 15, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Standards Violations KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Emissions KW - Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Farmlands KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Navigation KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Ocean Dumping KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Ships KW - Wetlands KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Texas KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Animals KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Flood Control Act of 1970, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16385249?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.title=FREEPORT+HARBOR+CHANNEL+IMPROVEMENT+PROJECT%2C+BRAZORIA+COUNTY%2C+TEXAS.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 8 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127459; 14738-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 7 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127453; 14738-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127453?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 6 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873127442; 14738-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 1 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126989; 14738-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 5 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126419; 14738-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 4 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126412; 14738-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 3 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126409; 14738-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 2 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126377; 14738-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126377?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. [Part 9 of 9] T2 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 873126212; 14738-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MISSISSIPPI RIVER GULF OUTLET (MRGO) ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION STUDY, LOUISIANA AND MISSISSIPPI. AN - 848819093; 14738 AB - PURPOSE: A comprehensive restoration plan to restore the Lake Borgne ecosystem and the areas affected by the Mississippi River Gulf Outlet (MRGO) navigation channel within coastal southeast Louisiana and parts of southwest Mississippi is proposed. The study area includes portions of the Mississippi River Deltaic Plain and encompasses approximately 3.86 million acres or over 6,000 square miles. In Louisiana, the study area includes the Pontchartrain Basin, which is comprised of the Upper, Middle, and Lower sub-basins. The Upper Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Maurepas and its adjacent wetlands and swamps. The Middle Pontchartrain sub-basin is comprised of Lake Pontchartrain, its adjacent cities and towns, and surrounding wetlands. The Lower Pontchartrain sub-basin includes Lake Borgne, the deauthorized MRGO, the Mississippi River, Chandeleur and Breton Sounds, portions of the Gulf of Mexico, and the surrounding wetlands, barrier islands, and communities. In Mississippi, the study area includes the Western Mississippi Sound, its bordering wetlands, and Cat Island. Louisiana parishes in the study area include Ascension, Jefferson, Livingston, Orleans, Plaquemines, St. Bernard, St. Charles, St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Tammany and Tangipahoa. Mississippi counties include portions of Hancock and Harrison. Construction and operation of the MRGO, in combination with other natural and man-made factors, has caused direct, indirect and cumulative land loss, shoreline erosion, saltwater intrusion, habitat modification, and impacts to wildlife and fisheries resources throughout the project area. In August 2005, Hurricane Katrina caused shoaling in the MRGO channel and, after Congressional request for a plan, the MRGO was officially de-authorized from the confluence with the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to the Gulf of Mexico as a federal navigation channel. A rock closure structure was constructed across the outlet near the Bayou La Loutre Ridge in St. Bernard Parish in 2009. Four alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are evaluated in this draft EIS. Alternative C, which is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan and the tentatively selected plan, would restore approximately 58,861 acres of habitat, including 13,950 acres of fresh and intermediate marsh; 33,966 acres of brackish marsh; 10,431 acres of cypress swamp; 466 acres of saline marsh; and 48 acres of ridge habitat. Alternative C includes approximately 70 miles of shoreline protection, and adaptively managed freshwater diversion near Violet, Louisiana. The Violet Freshwater Diversion, pulsing 7,000 cubic feet per second from April to May would influence 115,078 acres. Approximately 11,222 acres of the restoration and protection features would be located in the East Orleans Landbridge/Pearl River area and approximately 9,301 acres of restoration features would be located in the Biloxi Marsh area, which have been determined to be critical landscape features with respect to storm surge. Additionally, the cypress swamp and ridge restoration features include forested habitat demonstrated as having some storm surge damage risk reduction benefits. Three recreation features are proposed under the tentatively selected plan and would be located at Orleans Parish's Bienvenue Triangle, the Violet Freshwater Diversion site in St. Bernard's Parish, and Shell Beach, also in St. Bernard's Parish. Total project construction costs under the tentatively selected plan are estimated at $2.9 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: A comprehensive ecosystem restoration plan would modify the MRGO and restore the areas affected by the navigation channel, restore natural features of the ecosystem that will reduce or prevent damage from storm surge, and prevent the intrusion of saltwater into the waterway. The Violet Freshwater Diversion would mimic natural processes and enhance the sustainability of the system through the input of freshwater, nutrients, and sediment. Anticipated outputs of the tentatively selected plan would help address the current trend of degradation of the Lake Borgne ecosystem, support nationally significant resources, provide a sustainable and diverse array of fish and wildlife habitats, provide infrastructure protection, and make progress towards a more sustainable ecosystem. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The diversion channel would result in the loss of 284 acres of prime farmland and 245 acres of wetland. Restoration of the Bayou La Loutre Ridge would result in permanent impacts to 48 acres of brackish marsh. Turbidity as a result of dredging and construction would impact oyster leases temporarily. The impacts of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill and various emergency actions to address oil spill impacts could impact the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (P.L. 85-624) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). JF - EPA number: 100468, Draft EIS--543 pages, Draft Feasibility Report--274 pages, December 10, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Conservation KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Fish KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrology KW - Lakes KW - Recreation Facilities KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Shellfish KW - Shores KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Lake Borgne KW - Lake Pontchartrain KW - Louisiana KW - Mississippi KW - Mississippi River KW - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/848819093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.title=MISSISSIPPI+RIVER+GULF+OUTLET+%28MRGO%29+ECOSYSTEM+RESTORATION+STUDY%2C+LOUISIANA+AND+MISSISSIPPI.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 51 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127426; 14736-6_0051 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 47 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127417; 14736-6_0047 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 46 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127407; 14736-6_0046 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 45 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127399; 14736-6_0045 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 44 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127390; 14736-6_0044 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 32 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127385; 14736-6_0032 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 27 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127354; 14736-6_0027 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 22 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127345; 14736-6_0022 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 20 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127339; 14736-6_0020 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 17 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127325; 14736-6_0017 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127325?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 11 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127317; 14736-6_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 10 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127300; 14736-6_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 1 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127293; 14736-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 56 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127066; 14736-6_0056 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127066?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 55 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127055; 14736-6_0055 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127055?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 43 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127048; 14736-6_0043 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 42 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127040; 14736-6_0042 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127040?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 37 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127035; 14736-6_0037 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 36 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873127010; 14736-6_0036 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127010?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 18 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126979; 14736-6_0018 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126979?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 54 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126950; 14736-6_0054 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 53 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126944; 14736-6_0053 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 52 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126933; 14736-6_0052 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 50 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126925; 14736-6_0050 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 49 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126918; 14736-6_0049 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126918?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 48 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126909; 14736-6_0048 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126909?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 23 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126890; 14736-6_0023 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126890?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 21 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126876; 14736-6_0021 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 5 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126868; 14736-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126868?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 4 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126863; 14736-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 3 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126858; 14736-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126858?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 2 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126852; 14736-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126852?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 26 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126546; 14736-6_0026 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 25 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126535; 14736-6_0025 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 30 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126416; 14736-6_0030 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126416?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 6 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126407; 14736-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 31 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126370; 14736-6_0031 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126370?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 9 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126354; 14736-6_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 8 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126346; 14736-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 7 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126340; 14736-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 33 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126177; 14736-6_0033 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126177?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 15 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126162; 14736-6_0015 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 34 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126153; 14736-6_0034 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 14 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126151; 14736-6_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 16 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126147; 14736-6_0016 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126147?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 13 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126143; 14736-6_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126143?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 12 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126129; 14736-6_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 41 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126113; 14736-6_0041 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126113?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 40 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126102; 14736-6_0040 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126102?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 38 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126078; 14736-6_0038 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126078?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. [Part 39 of 56] T2 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 873126063; 14736-6_0039 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOLAR ENERGY DEVELOPMENT IN SIX SOUTHWESTERN STATES, ARIZONA, CALIFORNIA, COLORADO, NEVADA, NEW MEXICO, UTAH. AN - 848819118; 14736 AB - PURPOSE: A new Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Solar Energy Program and new Department of Energy (DOE) program guidance to further support utility-scale solar energy development on federal lands in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Utah are proposed. As of February 2010, the BLM had 127 active applications for right-of-way (ROW) authorizations for solar facilities to be located on BLM-administered lands; 14 of these applications are being processed as fast-track projects. The BLM currently evaluates solar energy ROW applications on a project-specific basis in accordance with its 2007 and 2010 policies. The proposed program would be applicable to all pending and future solar energy development applications upon execution of the Record of Decision. This draft Programmatic EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and two alternatives for implementing a new BLM Solar Energy Program. Under the preferred solar energy development program alternative, approximately 22 million acres of BLM-administered lands would be available for ROW application. A subset of these lands, about 677,400 acres, would be identified as solar energy zones (SEZs), or areas where the BLM would prioritize solar energy and associated transmission infrastructure development. Under the SEZ program alternative, the same policies and design features would be adopted, but development would be excluded from all BLM-administered lands except those located within the SEZs. This EIS also analyzes a DOE No Action Alternative and one action alternative under which DOE would develop programmatic guidance to further integrate environmental considerations into its analysis and selection of solar projects that it will support. Impacts are evaluated for utility-scale solar technologies considered to be viable for deployment over the next 20 years, including three concentrating solar power technologies: parabolic trough, power tower, and dish engine systems; and photovoltaic technologies. Categories of land that would be excluded from development under the BLM's preferred alternative include: lands in the National Landscape Conservation System; lands that have slopes greater than or equal to five percent; lands that have solar insolation levels below 6.5 kilowatt-hours per square meter per day; and lands that have known resources, resource uses, or special designations identified in local land use plans that are incompatible with solar energy development. Areas with a slope of one to two percent, a minimum of 2,500 acres, and proximity to existing transmission or designated corridors and to roads were identified as potential SEZs. In the future, based on lessons learned from individual projects and/or new information, the BLM could decide to expand SEZs, add SEZs, or remove or reduce SEZs through a land use planning process. Under the solar energy development program alternative, individual ROW applications would continue to be evaluated on a project-by-project basis; however, these evaluations would tier to the programmatic analyses and the decisions implemented in the resultant Record of Decision and land use plan amendments to the extent appropriate. Site- and project-specific data would be assessed in the individual project reviews and impacts not adequately mitigated by the programs administration and authorization policies and design features would be addressed through the implementation of additional mitigation requirements incorporated into the project plan of development and ROW authorization stipulations. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed program would respond to the high interest in siting utility-scale solar energy development on public lands and help to ensure consistent application of measures to avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse impacts of such development. In particular, the proposed program would identify and prioritize development in locations best-suited for such development (SEZs) and would likely result in the highest pace of development at the lowest cost to government, developers, and stakeholders. Programmatic guidance would provide DOE with the tools to make more informed decisions and to comprehensively determine where to make technology and resource investments. More streamlined environmental review of DOE-funded projects could result in more rapid penetration of utility-scale solar energy development with consequent decreases in greenhouse gas emissions and combustion-related pollutants and quicker realization of economic benefits. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Solar energy development would preclude other land uses and could alter the character of largely rural areas. Specially designated lands and lands with wilderness characteristics could be significantly impacted through visual impacts, reduced access, noise impacts, and fugitive dust during both construction and operations phases. Vegetation removal could result in increased risk of invasive species introduction, changes in species composition and distribution, habitat loss, and damage to biological soil crusts. Solar thermal energy technologies with wet-cooling systems require large volumes of water, with potentially significant environmental impacts. Numerous wildlife species would be impacted by loss of habitat, disturbance, loss of food and prey species, loss of breeding areas, effects on movement and migration, introduction of new species, habitat fragmentation, and changes in water availability. Lands available for ROW application include areas of potentially suitable habitat for special status species, although designated critical habitat would be excluded. LEGAL MANDATES: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-140), Energy Policy Act of 2005 (P.L. 109-58), Executive Order 13212, and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100466, Executive Summary--56 pages, Volume 1--957 pages, Proposed Solar Energy Zones--6 Volumes, Appendices--1,582 pages, December 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Energy KW - Agency number: DES 10-59 KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Energy Sources KW - Land Use KW - Solar Energy KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Resources KW - Wilderness KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Arizona KW - California KW - Colorado KW - Nevada KW - New Mexico KW - Utah KW - Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Compliance KW - Energy Policy Act of 2005, Funding KW - Executive Order 13212, Compliance KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/848819118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%2C+UTAH.&rft.title=SOLAR+ENERGY+DEVELOPMENT+IN+SIX+SOUTHWESTERN+STATES%2C+ARIZONA%2C+CALIFORNIA%2C+COLORADO%2C+NEVADA%2C+NEW+MEXICO%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, Washington, District of Columbia; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: December 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 53 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129804; 14730-0_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129804?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 52 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129774; 14730-0_0052 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129774?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 51 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129753; 14730-0_0051 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 50 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129726; 14730-0_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 49 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129698; 14730-0_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 40 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129658; 14730-0_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 38 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129620; 14730-0_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129620?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 30 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129573; 14730-0_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 29 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129545; 14730-0_0029 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129545?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 28 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129508; 14730-0_0028 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129508?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 27 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129465; 14730-0_0027 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129465?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 24 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129430; 14730-0_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 19 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129400; 14730-0_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129400?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 48 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129324; 14730-0_0048 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 47 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129257; 14730-0_0047 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 54 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129214; 14730-0_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 44 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129212; 14730-0_0044 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129212?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 42 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129153; 14730-0_0042 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 41 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129127; 14730-0_0041 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129127?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 37 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129106; 14730-0_0037 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129106?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 36 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129081; 14730-0_0036 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129081?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 32 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129056; 14730-0_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129056?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 31 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129037; 14730-0_0031 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129037?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 23 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873129005; 14730-0_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 57 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128971; 14730-0_0057 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128971?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 22 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128967; 14730-0_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128967?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 21 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128942; 14730-0_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128942?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 56 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128933; 14730-0_0056 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128933?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 26 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128912; 14730-0_0026 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 25 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128895; 14730-0_0025 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 59 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128805; 14730-0_0059 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128805?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 58 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128786; 14730-0_0058 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 7 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128703; 14730-0_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 46 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128696; 14730-0_0046 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128696?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 45 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128668; 14730-0_0045 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 62 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128652; 14730-0_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 60 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128636; 14730-0_0060 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128636?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 61 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128626; 14730-0_0061 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 18 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128597; 14730-0_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128597?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 55 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128578; 14730-0_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128578?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 43 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128528; 14730-0_0043 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 39 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128498; 14730-0_0039 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128498?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 35 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128478; 14730-0_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128478?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 34 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128466; 14730-0_0034 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128466?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 33 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128432; 14730-0_0033 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 10 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128328; 14730-0_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 9 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128321; 14730-0_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128321?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 8 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128309; 14730-0_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128309?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 14 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128259; 14730-0_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 13 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128168; 14730-0_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128168?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 1 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873128149; 14730-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128149?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 12 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127974; 14730-0_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 11 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127968; 14730-0_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 3 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127962; 14730-0_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127962?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 2 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127952; 14730-0_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 20 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127936; 14730-0_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 5 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127932; 14730-0_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127932?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 4 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127925; 14730-0_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 15 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127786; 14730-0_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127786?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 6 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127632; 14730-0_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127632?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 17 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127621; 14730-0_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 16 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127612; 14730-0_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127612?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 89 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127581; 14730-0_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 88 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127572; 14730-0_0088 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127572?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 87 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127561; 14730-0_0087 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 80 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127553; 14730-0_0080 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127553?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 79 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127540; 14730-0_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 78 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127527; 14730-0_0078 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 66 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127517; 14730-0_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127517?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 65 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127503; 14730-0_0065 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127503?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 64 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127490; 14730-0_0064 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127490?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 63 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127481; 14730-0_0063 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 77 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127173; 14730-0_0077 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127173?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 76 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127167; 14730-0_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127167?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 75 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127162; 14730-0_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127162?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 72 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127151; 14730-0_0072 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127151?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 71 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127145; 14730-0_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127145?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 70 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127136; 14730-0_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127136?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 82 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127045; 14730-0_0082 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127045?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 81 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127033; 14730-0_0081 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 69 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127022; 14730-0_0069 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 68 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127013; 14730-0_0068 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 67 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873127002; 14730-0_0067 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873127002?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 74 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126628; 14730-0_0074 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 73 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126615; 14730-0_0073 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126615?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 86 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126513; 14730-0_0086 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 85 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126502; 14730-0_0085 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126502?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 84 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126470; 14730-0_0084 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126470?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. [Part 83 of 89] T2 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 873126452; 14730-0_0083 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126452?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WA-520 BRIDGE REPLACEMENT AND HOV PROGRAM, PONTOON CONSTRUCTION PROJECT, GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY, WASHINGTON. AN - 16373193; 14730 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a new facility in Grays Harbor, Washington to expedite the construction of pontoons required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge over Lake Washington are proposed. The State Route 520 (SR 520) Pontoon Construction Project is one of four projects in the SR 520 Bridge Replacement and High-Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Program, which is designed to improve mobility and enhance safety and improve operation throughout the SR 520 corridors. The Evergreen Point Bridge has been damaged by past windstorms and is vulnerable to catastrophic failure. It is a critical component of the Puget Sound regions transportation infrastructure, and the consequences of bridge failure would be severe. The SR 520 Pontoon Construction Project involves building 33 pontoons needed to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in its current configuration as a four-lane bridge. This final EIS evaluates a No Build Alternative and two alternative sites on Grays Harbor: the Anderson & Middleton Alternative in Hoquiam, Washington; and the Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative in Aberdeen, Washington. Both build alternatives would involve construction of a new casting basin facility positioned a few hundred feet from the shoreline and partitioned into two separate work chambers. Completed pontoons would be stored in Grays Harbor in at least 25 feet of water until needed. Based on the current schedule for the planned bridge replacement, pontoons could be stored for an estimated 18 months if there is no catastrophic bridge failure. The Aberdeen Log Yard Alternative is the preferred alternative as the site would allow the use of shorter foundation piles that would result in substantial cost savings. This alternative would also avoid an archeological site eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places as well as effects on 4.8 acres of wetlands. The 51-acre site lies on the north shore of Grays Harbor and has recently been used for log storage. The generally flat site, which is undeveloped except for unpaved access roads, is bounded by industrial land uses to the west and east and railroad tracks along the northern boundary; the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. The shoreline at this site is a mix of small patches of vegetation, small and large rocks heavily embedded in mud, and driftwood on the face of a short berm covered with shrubs and alder saplings. Washington Department of Transportation would purchase the whole property, and the casting basin and support facilities would occupy the entire site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction of a new casting basin facility would shorten the time required to replace the Evergreen Point Bridge in the event of bridge failure from 5 years to just 1.5 years. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would remove 1.04 acre of palustrine wetlands and 0.06 acre of estuarine wetlands. The launch channel would require excavation of three acres within the shoreline, including mudflats and subtidal habitat. Fish and wildlife in the project vicinity could be affected by noise associated with pile-driving. Construction equipment would be visible from residences on south-facing hillsides at either site. 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 10-0165D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100460, Executive Summary, Final EIS, and Appendices--CD-ROM, December 2, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-10-01-F KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Assessments KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Soils Surveys KW - Transportation KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Grays Harbor KW - Lake Washington KW - Puget Sound KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 9 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16373193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-12-02&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.title=WA-520+BRIDGE+REPLACEMENT+AND+HOV+PROGRAM%2C+PONTOON+CONSTRUCTION+PROJECT%2C+GRAYS+HARBOR+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Olympia, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: December 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Late Quaternary slip rate on the Kern Canyon Fault at Soda Spring, Tulare County, California AN - 807618040; 2010-100879 AB - The Kern Canyon fault represents a major tectonic and physiographic boundary in the southern Sierra Nevada of east-central California. Previous investigations of the Kern Canyon fault underscore its importance as a Late Cretaceous and Neogene shear zone in the tectonic development of the southern Sierra Nevada. Study of the late Quaternary history of activity, however, has been confounded by the remote nature of the Kern Canyon fault and deep along-strike exhumation within the northern Kern River drainage, driven by focused fluvial and glacial erosion. Recent acquisition of airborne lidar (light detection and ranging) topography along the approximately 140 km length of the Kern Canyon fault provides a comprehensive view of the active surface trace. High-resolution, lidar-derived digital elevation models (DEMs) for the northern Kern Canyon fault enable identification of previously unrecognized offsets of late Quaternary moraines near Soda Spring (36.345 degrees N, 118.408 degrees W). Predominately north-striking fault scarps developed on the Soda Spring moraines display west-side-up displacement and lack a significant sense of strike-slip separation, consistent with detailed mapping and trenching along the entire Kern Canyon fault. Scarp-normal topographic profiling derived from the lidar DEMs suggests normal displacement of at least 2.8 +0.6/-0.5 m of the Tioga terminal moraine crest. Cosmogenic (super 10) Be exposure dating of Tioga moraine boulders yields a tight age cluster centered around 18.1+ or -0.5 ka (n=6), indicating a minimum normal-sense fault slip rate of approximately 0.1-0.2 mm/yr over this period. Taken together, these results provide the first clear documentation of late Quaternary activity on the Kern Canyon fault and highlight its role in accommodating internal deformation of the southern Sierra Nevada. JF - Lithosphere AU - Amos, Colin B AU - Kelson, Keith I AU - Rood, Dylan H AU - Simpson, David T AU - Rose, Ronn S Y1 - 2010/12// PY - 2010 DA - December 2010 SP - 411 EP - 417 PB - Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO VL - 2 IS - 6 SN - 1941-8264, 1941-8264 KW - United States KW - Tulare County California KW - Sierra Nevada KW - relative age KW - laser methods KW - isotopes KW - Tioga Moraine KW - Tahoe Moraine KW - cosmogenic elements KW - slip rates KW - mapping KW - digital terrain models KW - exposure age KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - California KW - radioactive isotopes KW - neotectonics KW - geochronology KW - moraines KW - tectonics KW - Soda Spring KW - faults KW - alkaline earth metals KW - Quaternary KW - Be-10 KW - radar methods KW - lidar methods KW - metals KW - upper Quaternary KW - Pleistocene KW - aerial photography KW - scarps KW - geomorphology KW - beryllium KW - remote sensing KW - Kern Canyon Fault KW - 24:Quaternary geology KW - 16:Structural geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/807618040?accountid=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=Lithosphere&rft.atitle=Late+Quaternary+slip+rate+on+the+Kern+Canyon+Fault+at+Soda+Spring%2C+Tulare+County%2C+California&rft.au=Amos%2C+Colin+B%3BKelson%2C+Keith+I%3BRood%2C+Dylan+H%3BSimpson%2C+David+T%3BRose%2C+Ronn+S&rft.aulast=Amos&rft.aufirst=Colin&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=2&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=411&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Lithosphere&rft.issn=19418264&rft_id=info:doi/10.1130%2FL100.1 L2 - http://lithosphere.gsapubs.org/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from GeoScienceWorld, Alexandria, VA, United States | Reference includes data supplied by the Geological Society of America, Boulder, CO, United States N1 - Date revised - 2010-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 33 N1 - PubXState - CO N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, geol. sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aerial photography; alkaline earth metals; Be-10; beryllium; California; Cenozoic; cosmogenic elements; digital terrain models; exposure age; faults; geochronology; geomorphology; isotopes; Kern Canyon Fault; laser methods; lidar methods; mapping; metals; moraines; neotectonics; Pleistocene; Quaternary; radar methods; radioactive isotopes; relative age; remote sensing; scarps; Sierra Nevada; slip rates; Soda Spring; Tahoe Moraine; tectonics; Tioga Moraine; Tulare County California; United States; upper Pleistocene; upper Quaternary DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1130/L100.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Geochemical investigations of metals release from submerged coal fly ash using extended elutriate tests. AN - 787043831; 20943255 AB - A storage pond dike failure occurred at the Tennessee Valley Authority Kingston Fossil Plant that resulted in the release of over 3.8 million cubic meters (5 million cubic yards) of fly ash. Approximately half of this material deposited in the main channel of the Emory River, 3.5 km upstream of the confluence of the Emory and Clinch Rivers, Tennessee, USA. Remediation efforts to date have focused on targeted removal of material from the channel through hydraulic dredging, as well as mechanical excavation in some areas. The agitation of the submerged fly ash during hydraulic dredging introduces river water into the fly ash material, which could alter the redox state of metals present in the fly ash and thereby change their sorption and mobility properties. A series of extended elutriate tests were used to determine the concentration and speciation of metals released from fly ash. Results indicated that arsenic and selenium species released from the fly ash materials during elutriate preparation were redox stable over the course of 10d, with dissolved arsenic being present as arsenate, and dissolved selenium being present as selenite. Concentrations of certain metals, such as arsenic, selenium, vanadium, and barium, increased in the elutriate waters over the 10d study, whereas manganese concentrations decreased, likely due to oxidation and precipitation reactions. Published by Elsevier Ltd. JF - Chemosphere AU - Bednar, A J AU - Chappell, M A AU - Seiter, J M AU - Stanley, J K AU - Averett, D E AU - Jones, W T AU - Pettway, B A AU - Kennedy, A J AU - Hendrix, S H AU - Steevens, J A AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180, United States. Anthony.J.Bednar@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/12// PY - 2010 DA - December 2010 SP - 1393 EP - 1400 VL - 81 IS - 11 KW - Coal Ash KW - 0 KW - Metals KW - Particulate Matter KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical KW - Carbon KW - 7440-44-0 KW - Index Medicus KW - Geological Phenomena KW - Environmental Restoration and Remediation KW - Water Pollutants, Chemical -- chemistry KW - Fresh Water -- chemistry KW - Metals -- chemistry KW - Particulate Matter -- chemistry KW - Carbon -- chemistry KW - Metals -- analysis UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/787043831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Chemosphere&rft.atitle=Geochemical+investigations+of+metals+release+from+submerged+coal+fly+ash+using+extended+elutriate+tests.&rft.au=Bednar%2C+A+J%3BChappell%2C+M+A%3BSeiter%2C+J+M%3BStanley%2C+J+K%3BAverett%2C+D+E%3BJones%2C+W+T%3BPettway%2C+B+A%3BKennedy%2C+A+J%3BHendrix%2C+S+H%3BSteevens%2C+J+A&rft.aulast=Bednar&rft.aufirst=A&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=81&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1393&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Chemosphere&rft.issn=1879-1298&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.chemosphere.2010.09.026 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2010-12-22 N1 - Date created - 2010-11-15 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chemosphere.2010.09.026 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of reduced sediment volume procedures for acute toxicity tests using the estuarine amphipod Leptocheirus plumulosus AN - 1671613541; 14430057 AB - The volume of sediment required to perform a sediment toxicity bioassay is a major driver of the overall cost associated with that bioassay. Sediment volume affects bioassay cost because of sediment collection, transportation, storage, and disposal costs as well as labor costs associated with organism recovery at the conclusion of the exposure. The objective of the current study was to evaluate reduced sediment volume versions of the standard U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) 10-d acute Leptocheirus plumulosus method that uses a beaker size of 1,000 ml and 20 organisms. The test design used evaluated the effects of beaker size (250 and 100 ml) and associated sediment volume (75 and 30 ml, respectively) as well as organism loading density (10 and 20 organisms) on test endpoint responsiveness relative to the standard 10-d test method. These comparisons were completed with three different types of contaminated sediments: a field-collected polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (PAH)-contaminated sediment, a lead-spiked control sediment, and a control sediment spiked with mineral oil. Assessment criteria included test endpoint sensitivity, endpoint consistency, statistical power, water quality, and logistical assessments. Results indicate that the current U.S. EPA method is preferable to the reduced sediment volume methods we assessed, but that a 250-ml beaker/10 organism experimental design is of comparable utility and may be advantageous when reduced sediment volumes are desirable because of high contaminant (spiking studies) or sediment disposal costs. In addition, the results of the current study provide toxicity reference values for PAHs, lead, and an oil surrogate for petroleum hydrocarbons. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Stanley, Jacob K AU - Kennedy, Alan J AU - Farrar, JDaniel AU - Mount, David R AU - Steevens, Jeffery A AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180 jacob.k.stanley@us.army.mil Y1 - 2010/12/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Dec 01 SP - 2769 EP - 2776 PB - Allen Press, Inc., 810 East Tenth St. Lawrence KS 66044 USA VL - 29 IS - 12 SN - 1552-8618, 1552-8618 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Leptocheirus plumulosus KW - Sediment volume KW - Lead KW - Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon KW - Test method KW - Organisms KW - Assessments KW - Density KW - Standards KW - Toxicity KW - Water quality KW - Drivers KW - Sediments KW - Bioassay KW - Brackish UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1671613541?accountid=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+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+reduced+sediment+volume+procedures+for+acute+toxicity+tests+using+the+estuarine+amphipod+Leptocheirus+plumulosus&rft.au=Stanley%2C+Jacob+K%3BKennedy%2C+Alan+J%3BFarrar%2C+JDaniel%3BMount%2C+David+R%3BSteevens%2C+Jeffery+A&rft.aulast=Stanley&rft.aufirst=Jacob&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=2769&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=15528618&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.333 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Brackish DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.333 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reference condition approach to restoration planning AN - 1017973430; 16711657 AB - Ecosystem restoration planning requires quantitative rigor to evaluate alternatives, define end states, report progress and perform environmental benefits analysis (EBA). Unfortunately, existing planning frameworks are, at best, semi-quantitative. In this paper, we: (1) describe a quantitative restoration planning approach based on a comprehensive, but simple mathematical framework that can be used to effectively apply knowledge and evaluate alternatives, (2) use the approach to derive a simple but precisely defined lexicon based on the reference condition concept and allied terms and (3) illustrate the approach with an example from the Upper Mississippi River System (UMRS) using hydrologic indicators. The approach supports the development of a scaleable restoration strategy that, in theory, can be expanded to ecosystem characteristics such as hydraulics, geomorphology, habitat and biodiversity. We identify three reference condition types, best achievable condition (ABAC), measured magnitude (MMi which can be determined at one or many times and places) and desired future condition (ADFC) that, when used with the mathematical framework, provide a complete system of accounts useful for goal-oriented system-level management and restoration. Published in 2010 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - River Research and Applications AU - Nestler, John M AU - Theiling, Charles H AU - Lubinski, Kenneth S AU - Smith, David L AD - Environmental Laboratory, U.S. Army Engineer Research & Development Center, CEERD-EP-W, 3909 Halls Ferry Rd., Vicksburg, MS 39180-6199, USA, john.m.nestler@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/12// PY - 2010 DA - Dec 2010 SP - 1199 EP - 1219 PB - Wiley-Blackwell, 111 River Street Hoboken NJ 07030-5774 United States VL - 26 IS - 10 SN - 1535-1467, 1535-1467 KW - Environment Abstracts; Ecology Abstracts; ASFA 1: Biological Sciences & Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Hydraulics KW - Ecosystems KW - River Systems KW - Indicators KW - Biological diversity KW - Biodiversity KW - Freshwater KW - Environmental factors KW - Habitats KW - Geomorphology KW - Planning KW - Rivers KW - Illustrations KW - Habitat KW - Identification KW - North America, Mississippi R. KW - Habitat improvement KW - Language KW - geomorphology KW - Benefits KW - AQ 00007:Industrial Effluents KW - Q1 08463:Habitat community studies KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - ENA 21:Wildlife KW - D 04060:Management and Conservation UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1017973430?accountid=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=Reference+condition+approach+to+restoration+planning&rft.au=Nestler%2C+John+M%3BTheiling%2C+Charles+H%3BLubinski%2C+Kenneth+S%3BSmith%2C+David+L&rft.aulast=Nestler&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=1199&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=River+Research+and+Applications&rft.issn=15351467&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Frra.1330 L2 - http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rra.1330/abstract LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Geomorphology; Habitat improvement; Illustrations; Biodiversity; Identification; Environmental factors; Rivers; Hydraulics; Language; Habitat; Biological diversity; geomorphology; Habitats; Ecosystems; River Systems; Planning; Indicators; Benefits; North America, Mississippi R.; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/rra.1330 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Numerical simulation of a low-lying barrier island's morphological response to Hurricane Katrina AN - 1015460749; 2012-048668 AB - Tropical cyclones that enter or form in the Gulf of Mexico generate storm surge and large waves that impact low-lying coastlines along the Gulf Coast. The Chandeleur Islands, located 161 km east of New Orleans, Louisiana, have endured numerous hurricanes that have passed nearby. Hurricane Katrina (landfall near Waveland MS, 29 Aug 2005) caused dramatic changes to the island elevation and shape. In this paper the predictability of hurricane-induced barrier island erosion and accretion is evaluated using a coupled hydrodynamic and morphodynamic model known as XBeach. Pre- and post-storm island topography was surveyed with an airborne lidar system. Numerical simulations utilized realistic surge and wave conditions determined from larger-scale hydrodynamic models. Simulations included model sensitivity tests with varying grid size and temporal resolutions. Model-predicted bathymetry/topography and post-storm survey data both showed similar patterns of island erosion, such as increased dissection by channels. However, the model under predicted the magnitude of erosion. Potential causes for under prediction include (1) errors in the initial conditions (the initial bathymetry/topography was measured three years prior to Katrina), (2) errors in the forcing conditions (a result of our omission of storms prior to Katrina and/or errors in Katrina storm conditions), and/or (3) physical processes that were omitted from the model (e.g., inclusion of sediment variations and bio-physical processes). JF - Coastal Engineering AU - Lindemer, C A AU - Plant, N G AU - Puleo, J A AU - Thompson, D M AU - Wamsley, T V Y1 - 2010/12// PY - 2010 DA - December 2010 SP - 985 EP - 995 PB - Elsevier, Amsterdam VL - 57 IS - 11-12 SN - 0378-3839, 0378-3839 KW - United States KW - laser methods KW - erosion KW - data processing KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - topography KW - sensitivity analysis KW - digital simulation KW - storms KW - Louisiana KW - northern Gulf of Mexico KW - littoral erosion KW - southeastern Louisiana KW - Hurricane Katrina KW - barrier islands KW - Saint Bernard Parish Louisiana KW - numerical models KW - Chandeleur Islands KW - landform evolution KW - radar methods KW - cyclones KW - lidar methods KW - bathymetry KW - North Atlantic KW - hurricanes KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015460749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Coastal+Engineering&rft.atitle=Numerical+simulation+of+a+low-lying+barrier+island%27s+morphological+response+to+Hurricane+Katrina&rft.au=Lindemer%2C+C+A%3BPlant%2C+N+G%3BPuleo%2C+J+A%3BThompson%2C+D+M%3BWamsley%2C+T+V&rft.aulast=Lindemer&rft.aufirst=C&rft.date=2010-12-01&rft.volume=57&rft.issue=11-12&rft.spage=985&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Coastal+Engineering&rft.issn=03783839&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.coastaleng.2010.06.004 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03783839 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2012-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 23 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Atlantic Ocean; barrier islands; bathymetry; Chandeleur Islands; cyclones; data processing; digital simulation; erosion; Gulf of Mexico; Hurricane Katrina; hurricanes; landform evolution; laser methods; lidar methods; littoral erosion; Louisiana; North Atlantic; northern Gulf of Mexico; numerical models; radar methods; Saint Bernard Parish Louisiana; sensitivity analysis; southeastern Louisiana; storms; topography; United States DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.coastaleng.2010.06.004 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 11 AND THE OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 1] T2 - STATE ROUTE 11 AND THE OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 873126252; 14728-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of State Route (SR) 11 and a new Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (POE) and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) at the U.S.- Mexico international border in the unincorporated community of East Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California is proposed. Capacities of the existing POEs in the region are currently being exceeded and transportation and land use planning agencies on both sides of the border have identified the longer-term need for a third border crossing and associated transportation facilities in the San Diego/Tijuana area. The proposed facilities are being studied under a two-tier process and a 2008 Tier I final EIS identified the preferred location for the facilities; a conditional Presidential Permit for the project was granted by the U.S. State Department in November 2008. Three build alternatives, with several design/operational variations, as well as a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under each of the build alternatives, SR-11 would be constructed as a 2.1-mile, four-lane toll highway, with two lanes in each direction, plus auxiliary lanes and connectors. It would extend east from the vicinity of Harvest Road (near the future SR-125/SR-905 interchange currently under construction) for 1.5 miles, before curving to the southeast near Alta Road and continuing for 0.6 mile to connect with the POE/CVEF site. To link SR-11 to SR-905, it would be necessary to modify the approved design of the eastern portion of SR-905 that is currently under construction. SR-11 would be located midway between Otay Mesa Road and Airway Road for most of its length, and would cross four local surface streets: Sanyo Avenue, Enrico Fermi Drive, Alta Road, and Siempre Viva Road. Undercrossings, overcrossings or interchanges would be provided at each of these locations, depending on the project alternative. The proposed POE would occupy 106 acres, and would accommodate northbound and southbound commercial and passenger traffic, as well as pedestrians and bicycles. The POE site would be accessed from the north by SR-11. From the south, entry would be through the proposed Otay II POE on the Mexico side of the border. Facilities would likely include inspection lanes, booths and canopies, a commercial vehicle and cargo inspection system, commercial import inspection building and docks, bulk storage inspection bins, a bird quarantine building, a commercial truck impound lot and a seizure vault. Other non-commercial facilities would include the main building, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a general parking lot. The proposed new CVEF, which would occupy 23 acres east of SR-11 along the northern POE boundary. After receiving clearance to enter the U.S. at the POE, northbound commercial vehicles would be routed into the CVEF facility for a safety/weight inspection prior to being released onto the regional roadway system. The CVEF design is expected to include a 7,900-square foot main building, commercial vehicle scales, and inspections bays. Without variations, the build alternatives would range in cost from $519 million for the No Interchange Alternative to $537 million for the Two Interchange Alternative. Implementation of the Siempre Viva Road full interchange variation with the Two Interchange Alternative would increase the cost of this alternative to $558 million. The SR-125 Connector variation or SR-905/SR-125/SR-11 full interchange variation would add an estimated $25 million or $46 million, respectively, to the cost of any of the build alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: New facilities would: increase inspection processing capacities and accommodate projected increases in international trade and personal cross-border travel in the San Diego/Tijuana region in a safe and secure manner; contribute to reductions in congestion at existing POEs; and accommodate commercial goods movement and cross-border travel to and from the Otay Mesa East POE. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require conversion of 239.7 to 264.7 acres to transportation use, acquisition of 220.5 to 245.2 acres of land, cause direct impacts to 111.5 acres of San Diego fairy shrimp critical habitat and 4.2 acres of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. Operation of the new Otay Mesa East POE would result in cumulative traffic impacts to select freeway segments, roadway segments and intersections in the project study area and noise levels would exceed noise abatement criteria at one location with sensitive receptors. Just east of Sanyo Avenue, the project would construct up to 26-foot high retaining walls in close proximity to existing buildings, resulting in an adverse impact on the visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0085D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0459F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100458, 660 pages and maps on CD-ROM, November 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Border Stations KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Insects KW - International Programs KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873126252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+11+AND+THE+OTAY+MESA+EAST+PORT+OF+ENTRY%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+11+AND+THE+OTAY+MESA+EAST+PORT+OF+ENTRY%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - STATE ROUTE 11 AND THE OTAY MESA EAST PORT OF ENTRY, CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 847269952; 14728 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of State Route (SR) 11 and a new Otay Mesa East Port of Entry (POE) and Commercial Vehicle Enforcement Facility (CVEF) at the U.S.- Mexico international border in the unincorporated community of East Otay Mesa, San Diego County, California is proposed. Capacities of the existing POEs in the region are currently being exceeded and transportation and land use planning agencies on both sides of the border have identified the longer-term need for a third border crossing and associated transportation facilities in the San Diego/Tijuana area. The proposed facilities are being studied under a two-tier process and a 2008 Tier I final EIS identified the preferred location for the facilities; a conditional Presidential Permit for the project was granted by the U.S. State Department in November 2008. Three build alternatives, with several design/operational variations, as well as a No Build Alternative are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under each of the build alternatives, SR-11 would be constructed as a 2.1-mile, four-lane toll highway, with two lanes in each direction, plus auxiliary lanes and connectors. It would extend east from the vicinity of Harvest Road (near the future SR-125/SR-905 interchange currently under construction) for 1.5 miles, before curving to the southeast near Alta Road and continuing for 0.6 mile to connect with the POE/CVEF site. To link SR-11 to SR-905, it would be necessary to modify the approved design of the eastern portion of SR-905 that is currently under construction. SR-11 would be located midway between Otay Mesa Road and Airway Road for most of its length, and would cross four local surface streets: Sanyo Avenue, Enrico Fermi Drive, Alta Road, and Siempre Viva Road. Undercrossings, overcrossings or interchanges would be provided at each of these locations, depending on the project alternative. The proposed POE would occupy 106 acres, and would accommodate northbound and southbound commercial and passenger traffic, as well as pedestrians and bicycles. The POE site would be accessed from the north by SR-11. From the south, entry would be through the proposed Otay II POE on the Mexico side of the border. Facilities would likely include inspection lanes, booths and canopies, a commercial vehicle and cargo inspection system, commercial import inspection building and docks, bulk storage inspection bins, a bird quarantine building, a commercial truck impound lot and a seizure vault. Other non-commercial facilities would include the main building, pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and a general parking lot. The proposed new CVEF, which would occupy 23 acres east of SR-11 along the northern POE boundary. After receiving clearance to enter the U.S. at the POE, northbound commercial vehicles would be routed into the CVEF facility for a safety/weight inspection prior to being released onto the regional roadway system. The CVEF design is expected to include a 7,900-square foot main building, commercial vehicle scales, and inspections bays. Without variations, the build alternatives would range in cost from $519 million for the No Interchange Alternative to $537 million for the Two Interchange Alternative. Implementation of the Siempre Viva Road full interchange variation with the Two Interchange Alternative would increase the cost of this alternative to $558 million. The SR-125 Connector variation or SR-905/SR-125/SR-11 full interchange variation would add an estimated $25 million or $46 million, respectively, to the cost of any of the build alternatives. POSITIVE IMPACTS: New facilities would: increase inspection processing capacities and accommodate projected increases in international trade and personal cross-border travel in the San Diego/Tijuana region in a safe and secure manner; contribute to reductions in congestion at existing POEs; and accommodate commercial goods movement and cross-border travel to and from the Otay Mesa East POE. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require conversion of 239.7 to 264.7 acres to transportation use, acquisition of 220.5 to 245.2 acres of land, cause direct impacts to 111.5 acres of San Diego fairy shrimp critical habitat and 4.2 acres of Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat. Operation of the new Otay Mesa East POE would result in cumulative traffic impacts to select freeway segments, roadway segments and intersections in the project study area and noise levels would exceed noise abatement criteria at one location with sensitive receptors. Just east of Sanyo Avenue, the project would construct up to 26-foot high retaining walls in close proximity to existing buildings, resulting in an adverse impact on the visual environment. LEGAL MANDATES: Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 08-0085D, Volume 32, Number 1 and 08-0459F, Volume 32, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100458, 660 pages and maps on CD-ROM, November 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Border Stations KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Insects KW - International Programs KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Roads KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Transportation KW - California KW - Mexico KW - Endangered Species Act of 1973, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/847269952?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=STATE+ROUTE+11+AND+THE+OTAY+MESA+EAST+PORT+OF+ENTRY%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=STATE+ROUTE+11+AND+THE+OTAY+MESA+EAST+PORT+OF+ENTRY%2C+CITY+AND+COUNTY+OF+SAN+DIEGO%2C+CALIFORNIA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Sacramento, California; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE OSWEGO TO PORTLAND TRANSIT PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - LAKE OSWEGO TO PORTLAND TRANSIT PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 873130284; 14726-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Public transit improvements in the Lake Oswego to Portland transit corridor in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region are proposed. Population, employment, congestion, and travel times in the region are all expected to grow significantly and local and regional plans call for Metro, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), and the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego to implement improved transit service. The project corridor extends south from downtown Portland for seven miles to downtown Lake Oswego and is constrained to the east by the Willamette River and to the west by the slopes of the Portland West Hills. TriMet Line 35 is the primary trunk bus line serving the corridor and it generally operates on State Highway 43 which connects the two downtowns. The Lake Oswego Transit Center provides connections between Line 35 and other corridor routes. Two additional primary activity centers in the corridor are the South Waterfront District and Johns Landing, which are located immediately south of downtown Portland and include a mix of medium to high-density residential, commercial, retail, and institutional uses. The South Waterfront District includes the existing Portland Streetcar line, connecting Portland State University, downtown Portland and the Pearl and Northwest districts, and the Portland Aerial Tram, connecting the Oregon Health Sciences University campuses in the South Waterfront District and the Portland West Hills. Based on current timelines, the South Waterfront District is also expected to include a station on the Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail line with service beginning in 2015. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would involve modifications to bus lines 35 and 36, including removal of half of the bus stops between Lake Oswego and downtown Portland, mostly along Highway 43. Line 36 would run between King City and Lake Oswego. The alternative would also include a new 300-space park-and-ride lot in downtown Lake Oswego. The Streetcar Alternative, which is analyzed in six segments, would extend existing streetcar tracks and service between Southwest Bancroft Street and downtown Lake Oswego, generally parallel to Highway 43, adding about six miles of new streetcar track, with 10 new streetcar stations and two new park-and-ride lots (100 and 300 spaces), using 11 new streetcars. Line 35 and 36 service and bus stops would both cease operations north of downtown Lake Oswego. Three design options for the Streetcar Alternative are evaluated: the Willamette Shore Line, Macadam In-Street, and Macadam Additional Lane options in Segment 3 (Johns Landing); the Willamette Shore Line and Riverwood options in Segment 5 (Dunthorpe/Riverdale); and the Union Pacific Railroad Right of Way and Foothills options in Segment 6 (Lake Oswego). Capital costs of the Enhanced Bus Alternative are estimated at $37.8 million in 2010 dollars; additional annual operating costs are estimated at $2.79 million. Capital costs of the Streetcar Alternative are estimated at up to $347.4 million in 2010 dollars; additional annual operating costs are estimated at $1.25 million. Construction is planned to begin by 2015 and operations to start in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improving transit within the corridor would optimize the regional transportation system in light of constraints that limit expansion of highway and arterial infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Enhanced Bus Alternative would result in three additional congested intersections, 1.3 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplain, and 0.8 acre of new impervious surface. The Streetcar Alternative would result in: up to seven potential displacements; the net loss of up to 175 parking spaces; two additional congested intersections; one severe noise impact without potential mitigation and up to 28 vibration impacts without mitigation; up to 0.1 acre of filled wetland, 10.1 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplain, and 18.2 acres of new impervious surface; and loss of up to 1.0 acre of parkland in one park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100456, 543 pages, November 24, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Oregon KW - Federal Transit Law, 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/873130284?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+OSWEGO+TO+PORTLAND+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=LAKE+OSWEGO+TO+PORTLAND+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - LAKE OSWEGO TO PORTLAND TRANSIT PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 16370539; 14726 AB - PURPOSE: Public transit improvements in the Lake Oswego to Portland transit corridor in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region are proposed. Population, employment, congestion, and travel times in the region are all expected to grow significantly and local and regional plans call for Metro, the Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of Oregon (TriMet), and the cities of Portland and Lake Oswego to implement improved transit service. The project corridor extends south from downtown Portland for seven miles to downtown Lake Oswego and is constrained to the east by the Willamette River and to the west by the slopes of the Portland West Hills. TriMet Line 35 is the primary trunk bus line serving the corridor and it generally operates on State Highway 43 which connects the two downtowns. The Lake Oswego Transit Center provides connections between Line 35 and other corridor routes. Two additional primary activity centers in the corridor are the South Waterfront District and Johns Landing, which are located immediately south of downtown Portland and include a mix of medium to high-density residential, commercial, retail, and institutional uses. The South Waterfront District includes the existing Portland Streetcar line, connecting Portland State University, downtown Portland and the Pearl and Northwest districts, and the Portland Aerial Tram, connecting the Oregon Health Sciences University campuses in the South Waterfront District and the Portland West Hills. Based on current timelines, the South Waterfront District is also expected to include a station on the Portland to Milwaukie Light Rail line with service beginning in 2015. Three alternatives, including a No Build Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. The Enhanced Bus Alternative would involve modifications to bus lines 35 and 36, including removal of half of the bus stops between Lake Oswego and downtown Portland, mostly along Highway 43. Line 36 would run between King City and Lake Oswego. The alternative would also include a new 300-space park-and-ride lot in downtown Lake Oswego. The Streetcar Alternative, which is analyzed in six segments, would extend existing streetcar tracks and service between Southwest Bancroft Street and downtown Lake Oswego, generally parallel to Highway 43, adding about six miles of new streetcar track, with 10 new streetcar stations and two new park-and-ride lots (100 and 300 spaces), using 11 new streetcars. Line 35 and 36 service and bus stops would both cease operations north of downtown Lake Oswego. Three design options for the Streetcar Alternative are evaluated: the Willamette Shore Line, Macadam In-Street, and Macadam Additional Lane options in Segment 3 (Johns Landing); the Willamette Shore Line and Riverwood options in Segment 5 (Dunthorpe/Riverdale); and the Union Pacific Railroad Right of Way and Foothills options in Segment 6 (Lake Oswego). Capital costs of the Enhanced Bus Alternative are estimated at $37.8 million in 2010 dollars; additional annual operating costs are estimated at $2.79 million. Capital costs of the Streetcar Alternative are estimated at up to $347.4 million in 2010 dollars; additional annual operating costs are estimated at $1.25 million. Construction is planned to begin by 2015 and operations to start in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improving transit within the corridor would optimize the regional transportation system in light of constraints that limit expansion of highway and arterial infrastructure. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the Enhanced Bus Alternative would result in three additional congested intersections, 1.3 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplain, and 0.8 acre of new impervious surface. The Streetcar Alternative would result in: up to seven potential displacements; the net loss of up to 175 parking spaces; two additional congested intersections; one severe noise impact without potential mitigation and up to 28 vibration impacts without mitigation; up to 0.1 acre of filled wetland, 10.1 acres of fill in the 100-year floodplain, and 18.2 acres of new impervious surface; and loss of up to 1.0 acre of parkland in one park. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Transit Law (49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100456, 543 pages, November 24, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Central Business Districts KW - Highways KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Oregon KW - Federal Transit Law, 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/16370539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-24&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=LAKE+OSWEGO+TO+PORTLAND+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=LAKE+OSWEGO+TO+PORTLAND+TRANSIT+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 24, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 14 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255085; 14723-3_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 10 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255079; 14723-3_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255079?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 8 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255067; 14723-3_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255067?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 7 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255057; 14723-3_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255057?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 6 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255049; 14723-3_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255049?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255042; 14723-3_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255033; 14723-3_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876255027; 14723-3_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876255027?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 110 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254949; 14723-3_0110 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 110 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 109 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254939; 14723-3_0109 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 109 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254939?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 105 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254923; 14723-3_0105 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 105 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254923?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 94 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254905; 14723-3_0094 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 94 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 93 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254880; 14723-3_0093 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254880?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 92 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254863; 14723-3_0092 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 92 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254863?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 91 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254848; 14723-3_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 85 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254838; 14723-3_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254838?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 84 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254831; 14723-3_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254831?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 83 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254825; 14723-3_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254825?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 80 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254822; 14723-3_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254822?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 79 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254814; 14723-3_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254814?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 78 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254809; 14723-3_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254809?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 74 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254801; 14723-3_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254801?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 64 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254794; 14723-3_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254794?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 63 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254785; 14723-3_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254785?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 62 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254779; 14723-3_0062 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254779?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 58 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254773; 14723-3_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254773?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 57 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254767; 14723-3_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254767?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 55 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254760; 14723-3_0055 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254760?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 54 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254753; 14723-3_0054 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 49 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254746; 14723-3_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 46 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254733; 14723-3_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 39 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254730; 14723-3_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 38 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254728; 14723-3_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 34 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254726; 14723-3_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254726?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 31 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254719; 14723-3_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 30 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254717; 14723-3_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 26 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254715; 14723-3_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254715?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 22 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254714; 14723-3_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 21 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254713; 14723-3_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254713?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 18 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254688; 14723-3_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 16 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254671; 14723-3_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 15 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254659; 14723-3_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 13 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254650; 14723-3_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 102 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254595; 14723-3_0102 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 102 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 101 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254591; 14723-3_0101 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 101 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254591?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 100 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254450; 14723-3_0100 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 100 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254450?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 99 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254442; 14723-3_0099 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 99 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 73 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254437; 14723-3_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 72 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254435; 14723-3_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 70 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254432; 14723-3_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 69 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254430; 14723-3_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254430?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 48 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254427; 14723-3_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 47 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254426; 14723-3_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254426?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 45 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254423; 14723-3_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254423?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 25 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254421; 14723-3_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 116 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254356; 14723-3_0116 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 116 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254356?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 115 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254355; 14723-3_0115 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 115 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254355?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 114 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254353; 14723-3_0114 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 114 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254353?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 113 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254351; 14723-3_0113 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 113 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 111 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254350; 14723-3_0111 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 111 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 106 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254349; 14723-3_0106 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 106 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254349?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 104 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254347; 14723-3_0104 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 104 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254347?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 103 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254345; 14723-3_0103 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 103 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 95 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254343; 14723-3_0095 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 95 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254343?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 87 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254339; 14723-3_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254339?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 86 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254336; 14723-3_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 77 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254333; 14723-3_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254333?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 71 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254330; 14723-3_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 65 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254328; 14723-3_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 60 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254327; 14723-3_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254327?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 59 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254324; 14723-3_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254324?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 53 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254322; 14723-3_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 52 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254320; 14723-3_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254320?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 41 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254318; 14723-3_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 40 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254316; 14723-3_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 36 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254313; 14723-3_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254313?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 35 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254307; 14723-3_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254307?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 24 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254301; 14723-3_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 23 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876254298; 14723-3_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254298?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 108 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253659; 14723-3_0108 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 108 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 107 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253658; 14723-3_0107 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 107 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 98 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253657; 14723-3_0098 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 98 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253657?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 97 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253656; 14723-3_0097 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 97 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 96 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253655; 14723-3_0096 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 96 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 68 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253654; 14723-3_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 67 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253653; 14723-3_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 44 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253651; 14723-3_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 43 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253650; 14723-3_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 42 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876253649; 14723-3_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 9 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876252059; 14723-3_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252059?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 5 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876252052; 14723-3_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 4 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876252042; 14723-3_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876252042?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 82 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251462; 14723-3_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 81 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251461; 14723-3_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251461?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 33 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251459; 14723-3_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 32 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251458; 14723-3_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251458?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 112 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251095; 14723-3_0112 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 112 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251095?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 76 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251094; 14723-3_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251094?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 75 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251093; 14723-3_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251093?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 51 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251092; 14723-3_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251092?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 50 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251089; 14723-3_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251089?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 28 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251087; 14723-3_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251087?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 27 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251085; 14723-3_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251085?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 12 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251006; 14723-3_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 11 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876251005; 14723-3_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251005?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 17 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876248605; 14723-3_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248605?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 20 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247759; 14723-3_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247759?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 19 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247746; 14723-3_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247746?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 90 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247318; 14723-3_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 89 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247312; 14723-3_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247312?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 88 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247301; 14723-3_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247301?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 61 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247291; 14723-3_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247291?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 37 of 116] T2 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876247283; 14723-3_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876247283?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SAVANNAH HARBOR EXPANSION PROJECT, CHATHAM COUNTY GEORGIA AND JASPER COUNTY, SOUTH CAROLINA (TIER II ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 846896253; 14723 AB - PURPOSE: The deepening of Savannah Harbor and shipping channel in Chatham County, Georgia and Jasper County, South Carolina is proposed. Savannah Harbor is a deep draft harbor on the South Atlantic coast 75 miles south of Charleston, South Carolina and 120 miles north of Jacksonville, Florida. Savannah Harbor includes an inner harbor that comprises the last 21.3 miles of the Savannah River and an entrance channel that presently extends about 11.4 miles into the Atlantic Ocean. Savannah National Wildlife Refuge lies adjacent to, and upstream of, the Savannah Harbor project and consists of 29,175 acres of palustrine forested wetlands, palustrine and estuarine emergent wetlands, palustrine scrub-shrub wetlands, riverine wetlands, diked waterfowl impoundments (managed wetlands) and uplands. About 6,000 acres are actively managed wetlands which provide excellent habitat for wintering waterfowl, shorebirds, wading birds, and wood ducks. The refuge encompasses much of the high value fish and wildlife habitat that has been or is likely to be impacted by harbor development. Since the last harbor improvements were completed 1994, container traffic has greatly exceeded projections with total tonnage growing at an average annual rate of 6.2 percent between 1995 and 2004. In excess of 70 percent of the vessels do not call on Savannah Harbor at their maximum capacity or design draft. Congress conditionally authorized deepening the harbor up to six feet in the Water Resources Development Act of 1999. The Corps of Engineers issued a report later in 1999 which provided further direction on the additional studies that needed to be conducted. This Tier II draft EIS accompanies a General Re-evaluation Report and evaluates a No Action Alternative and five alternatives for addressing navigation issues based on deepening the navigation channel from the existing depth of 42 feet Mean Low Water (MLW) up to 48 feet MLW. The project would include extending the entrance channel, deepening the existing entrance channel, deepening of the inner harbor to the Garden City Terminal of the Georgia Ports Authority, annual maintenance dredging of the entrance and inner harbor channels to maintain authorized project depths (including advance maintenance), expanding the Kings Island turning basin across from the Garden City Terminal, deepening eight container vessel berths at the Garden City Terminal, construction of four bend wideners, two meeting areas, and construction of six mitigation features. The maximum authorized plan would involve dredging most of the harbor and existing turning basin six feet deeper to 48 feet MLW. Dredging methods could include hydraulic pipeline, hopper dredge, mechanical dredge, or similar equipment. These excavation methods would be used to excavate approximately 15 million cubic yards of sediment from the inner harbor with disposal in the existing upland confined disposal facility and about 13 million cubic yards of sediment from the entrance channel with placement in nearshore feeder berms off Tybee Island, the submerged berms (2,000 feet from the ocean bar entrance channel), and/or the approved ocean dredged material disposal site. This proposed action would result in the initial excavation of about 28 million cubic yards of dredged sediment. The tentatively recommended plan is either the 47-foot depth alternative or the 48-foot depth alternative. Subject to the availability of funds, the construction would likely occur over a three to four year period at an estimated cost of $230.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would address inefficiencies and problems associated with turning capabilities and overall maneuverability in certain reaches of the inner harbor. Deepening the harbor to the proposed depth would allow vessels to transport the same amount of commodities in fewer trips using the greater operating drafts or larger vessels and thus saving on shipping costs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: With mitigation measures, sediment removal and dredging would directly impact endangered shortnose sturgeon habitat, striped bass habitat, up to 337 acres of tidal freshwater wetlands, and 15.6 acres of fringe brackish marshes. Additional impacts to these resources would also occur through increased salinity and lowering of dissolved oxygen, which are indirect effects resulting from deepening of the harbor. LEGAL MANDATES: Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1999 (P.L. 106-53). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the Tier I draft and final EISs, see 98-0157D, Volume 22, Number 2 and 98-0415F, Volume 22, Number 4, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100453, Volume I--1,202 pages, Volume II--884 pages, General Re-Evaluation Report--857 pages, November 16, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Channels KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Estuaries KW - Fish KW - Harbor Improvements KW - Harbors KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Section 103 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Ships KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Georgia KW - Savannah Harbor KW - Savannah National Wildlife Refuge KW - South Carolina KW - Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1999, Program Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/846896253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-16&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=SAVANNAH+HARBOR+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+CHATHAM+COUNTY+GEORGIA+AND+JASPER+COUNTY%2C+SOUTH+CAROLINA+%28TIER+II+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Savannah, Georgia; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 16, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 19 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873134025; 14718-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134025?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873134022; 14718-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134022?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873134018; 14718-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134018?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873134017; 14718-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873134013; 14718-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873134013?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 53 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133734; 14718-8_0053 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133734?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 48 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133731; 14718-8_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 47 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133729; 14718-8_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133729?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 40 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133723; 14718-8_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133723?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 39 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133720; 14718-8_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133720?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 35 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133718; 14718-8_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 34 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133714; 14718-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 32 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133708; 14718-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133708?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 31 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133705; 14718-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 28 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133702; 14718-8_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133702?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 27 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133697; 14718-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133697?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133462; 14718-8_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133462?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133446; 14718-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133446?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 61 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133444; 14718-8_0061 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 61 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 58 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133434; 14718-8_0058 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 58 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133434?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 52 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133427; 14718-8_0052 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 52 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 51 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133414; 14718-8_0051 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 51 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 46 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133407; 14718-8_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133407?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 33 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133399; 14718-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133399?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 88 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133365; 14718-8_0088 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 88 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 87 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133357; 14718-8_0087 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 87 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133357?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133348; 14716-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of full highway access between Mariposa and El Portal via State Route 140 (SR 140) in Mariposa County, California is proposed. The project would involve repairing or permanently bypassing the 0.7 mile segment of SR 140 that was blocked or damaged by the Ferguson rockslide. Within the limits of the proposed project and prior to the Ferguson rockslide, SR 140 was a two-lane, undivided highway. Since April 2006, rockslides have covered the highway with 798,000 tons of rock and debris closing SR 140 to traffic from eight miles east of Briceburg to 7.6 miles west of El Portal. Following the rockslide and the completion of a temporary detour, SR 140 now bridges the Merced RIver, bypassing the rockslide, as a one-lane road. This bypass route provides for one-directional traffic that is controlled by signalized lights. Six build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative C would involve construction of an open-cut realignment. The highway would be realigned to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River and bypassing the rockslide. SR 140 would cut through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Alternative T would utilize a tunnel realignment to bypass the rockslide. SR 140 would tunnel 700 feet through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Under Alternative T-3, a 2,200-foot-long tunnel would be constructed under the area of the slide. Alternative S would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. Alternative S-2 is similar to Alternative S and would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. This alternative differs from Alternative S in that it proposes two bridge type variations along with their own specific roadway alignments. The first (S2-V1) would construct two tied-arch bridges, which use an arch structure with cables above the bridge deck for support. The second (S2-V2) would construct two slant-leg bridges, which use V-shaped columns to support the bridge deck. Alternative R would involve construction of a rockshed (cut-and-cover tunnel) through the talus (foundation layer) of the slide along the existing SR 140 alignment. The removal of rock material would range from 8,300 cubic yards for Alternative S to 320,000 cubic yards for Alternative C. Estimated project costs range from $34.6 for Alternative S to $179.2 million for Alternative T-3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permanent restoration of SR 140 would eliminate the detour and provide full access to all types of travelers, ranging from recreational to business, between the town of Mariposa and Yosemite National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities may temporarily and indirectly affect hardhead fish as the soil is stirred up and creates cloudiness within the river. All the build alternatives would remove potential bat foraging and roosting habitat. Alternatives R and T-3 would remove 2.10 acres and 0.45 acre of limestone salamander habitat, respectively, resulting in the likely take of the animal itself. Alternatives R and T-3 would cut into the slopes on the south side of the river impacting habitat for the special-status plant species Tompkins sedge, Mariposa clarkia, Merced clarkia, and smallflower monkeyflower. Alternatives C, T, and S would impede the free-flowing nature of the Wild and Scenic-designated Merced River by constructing bridge piers within the wild and scenic river boundaries. Additional impacts could occur because the proposed bridge piers would also be placed in the river flow, obstructing whitewater rafting. The larger concrete bridge elements of Alternatives C, T, S, and S-2 would moderately decrease the visual quality of the landscape within the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100446, 277 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Drilling KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+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 - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 86 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133346; 14718-8_0086 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 86 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133346?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 85 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133340; 14718-8_0085 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 85 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133340?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 84 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133331; 14718-8_0084 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 84 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 83 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133322; 14718-8_0083 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 82 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133310; 14718-8_0082 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 82 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133310?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 81 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133300; 14718-8_0081 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 81 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133300?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 80 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133289; 14718-8_0080 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133289?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 91 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132865; 14718-8_0091 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 74 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132848; 14718-8_0074 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 74 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132848?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 73 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132834; 14718-8_0073 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 73 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132834?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 68 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132807; 14718-8_0068 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 68 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132807?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 67 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132787; 14718-8_0067 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 67 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132787?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 50 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132778; 14718-8_0050 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132778?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 64 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132772; 14718-8_0064 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 64 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132772?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 49 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132766; 14718-8_0049 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 45 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132761; 14718-8_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132761?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 41 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132755; 14718-8_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132755?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 38 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132749; 14718-8_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 37 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132736; 14718-8_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132736?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 30 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132728; 14718-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132728?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 29 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132722; 14718-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132653; 14718-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132653?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 79 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132499; 14718-8_0079 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 78 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132484; 14718-8_0078 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132484?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 71 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132473; 14718-8_0071 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 70 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132464; 14718-8_0070 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132464?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 76 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132436; 14718-8_0076 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 89 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132432; 14718-8_0089 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 75 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132412; 14718-8_0075 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132412?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 90 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132295; 14718-8_0090 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132295?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 56 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132053; 14718-8_0056 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 56 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 36 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132048; 14718-8_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 26 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132035; 14718-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132035?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 25 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132029; 14718-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132029?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 77 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873132004; 14718-8_0077 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 77 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132004?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 72 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131998; 14718-8_0072 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 72 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131998?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 69 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131987; 14718-8_0069 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 69 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 66 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131974; 14718-8_0066 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 65 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131964; 14718-8_0065 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 65 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131964?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 60 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131766; 14718-8_0060 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 60 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131766?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 59 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131757; 14718-8_0059 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 59 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131757?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 57 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131744; 14718-8_0057 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 57 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131744?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 44 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131731; 14718-8_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131731?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 43 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131714; 14718-8_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131714?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 63 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131330; 14718-8_0063 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 63 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 13 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131251; 14718-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 24 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130491; 14718-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 20 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130483; 14718-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130483?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 23 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130469; 14718-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 22 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130459; 14718-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130459?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130444; 14718-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130444?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130330; 14718-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130306; 14718-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 18 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130297; 14718-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130297?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 17 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130274; 14718-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130274?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 15 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130250; 14718-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 14 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130223; 14718-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130223?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 21 of 92] T2 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873129840; 14718-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129840?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - FERGUSON SLIDE PERMANENT RESTORATION PROJECT, MARIPOSA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 16379473; 14716 AB - PURPOSE: The restoration of full highway access between Mariposa and El Portal via State Route 140 (SR 140) in Mariposa County, California is proposed. The project would involve repairing or permanently bypassing the 0.7 mile segment of SR 140 that was blocked or damaged by the Ferguson rockslide. Within the limits of the proposed project and prior to the Ferguson rockslide, SR 140 was a two-lane, undivided highway. Since April 2006, rockslides have covered the highway with 798,000 tons of rock and debris closing SR 140 to traffic from eight miles east of Briceburg to 7.6 miles west of El Portal. Following the rockslide and the completion of a temporary detour, SR 140 now bridges the Merced RIver, bypassing the rockslide, as a one-lane road. This bypass route provides for one-directional traffic that is controlled by signalized lights. Six build alternatives and a No Build Alternative are considered in this draft EIS. Alternative C would involve construction of an open-cut realignment. The highway would be realigned to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River and bypassing the rockslide. SR 140 would cut through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Alternative T would utilize a tunnel realignment to bypass the rockslide. SR 140 would tunnel 700 feet through the mountain across the Merced River from the rockslide and then span back across the river where it would meet the existing alignment. Two bridges would be built across the river. Under Alternative T-3, a 2,200-foot-long tunnel would be constructed under the area of the slide. Alternative S would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. Alternative S-2 is similar to Alternative S and would realign the highway to the northeast of its current alignment, spanning the Merced River with two bridges and bypassing the rockslide with a hillside viaduct and retaining wall. This alternative differs from Alternative S in that it proposes two bridge type variations along with their own specific roadway alignments. The first (S2-V1) would construct two tied-arch bridges, which use an arch structure with cables above the bridge deck for support. The second (S2-V2) would construct two slant-leg bridges, which use V-shaped columns to support the bridge deck. Alternative R would involve construction of a rockshed (cut-and-cover tunnel) through the talus (foundation layer) of the slide along the existing SR 140 alignment. The removal of rock material would range from 8,300 cubic yards for Alternative S to 320,000 cubic yards for Alternative C. Estimated project costs range from $34.6 for Alternative S to $179.2 million for Alternative T-3. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Permanent restoration of SR 140 would eliminate the detour and provide full access to all types of travelers, ranging from recreational to business, between the town of Mariposa and Yosemite National Park. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction activities may temporarily and indirectly affect hardhead fish as the soil is stirred up and creates cloudiness within the river. All the build alternatives would remove potential bat foraging and roosting habitat. Alternatives R and T-3 would remove 2.10 acres and 0.45 acre of limestone salamander habitat, respectively, resulting in the likely take of the animal itself. Alternatives R and T-3 would cut into the slopes on the south side of the river impacting habitat for the special-status plant species Tompkins sedge, Mariposa clarkia, Merced clarkia, and smallflower monkeyflower. Alternatives C, T, and S would impede the free-flowing nature of the Wild and Scenic-designated Merced River by constructing bridge piers within the wild and scenic river boundaries. Additional impacts could occur because the proposed bridge piers would also be placed in the river flow, obstructing whitewater rafting. The larger concrete bridge elements of Alternatives C, T, S, and S-2 would moderately decrease the visual quality of the landscape within the project area. LEGAL MANDATES: Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended (49 U.S.C. 1651 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), and Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (16 U.S.C. 1271 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100446, 277 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Bridges KW - Drilling KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Recreation KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Merced River KW - Yosemite National Park KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16379473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=FERGUSON+SLIDE+PERMANENT+RESTORATION+PROJECT%2C+MARIPOSA+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 - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - U.S. STEEL KEETAC MINE EXPANSION PROJECT, ITASCA AND ST. LOUIS COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 16372432; 14718 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the Keetac open pit taconite mine and processing facility near the city of Keewatin in Itasca and St. Louis counties, Minnesota is proposed. Under a 25-year plan, U.S. Steel proposes to mine taconite ore and upgrade and operate a currently idle taconite processing line to increase taconite pellet production from 6 million short tons a year (MSTY) to 9.6 MSTY. Keetac is located in the Mesabi Iron Range, a major geologic feature oriented northeast to southwest across more than 120 miles of northeastern Minnesota. Taconite mining and taconite pellet production have been ongoing at Keetac since 1967. An original Phase I grate kiln pellet line began operation in 1969, and Phase II expansion added a second in 1977. The Phase I facility was idled in December 1980. The current facility can continue taconite pellet production at 6.0 MSTY until about the year 2021 under existing permits. The proposed project includes installation of energy efficient technologies and new emission controls at the plant, expansion of mining and stockpiling, upgraded concentrating and agglomerating processes, a vertical expansion of the tailings basin, and construction of a biomass processing facility. The proposed project would increase the mine, waste rock and surface stockpiles, and tailings basin by approximately 2,075 acres. Existing rock crushing facilities and existing infrastructure (public roads, railroads) and utilities (water, electric, gas and sewer) are adequate to accommodate both existing operations and the proposed project. The indurating furnace would be fueled by natural gas and biomass with coal and fuel oil used as backup fuels. Additional haul trucks and other pit-mining equipment would be needed and additional dewatering activities would take place as boundaries of the mine area expand. Based on review of available mercury control technologies, the proposed project would install activated carbon injection to control mercury emissions for the new processing line. Two proposed stockpile location alternatives, several alternative stockpile location concepts, and in-pit stockpile alternatives are also evaluated. With maximization of in-pit stockpile options, it is estimated that an additional 118 million bank cubic yards of excess surface material from the proposed project would need to be stockpiled over 21.5 years to continue uninterrupted mining of taconite. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS evaluates a No Action Alternative which would continue current operation of the mine without expansion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the project would increase the rate and total quantity of taconite pellet production at the Keetac facility using existing infrastructure. Shipments of taconite pellets to steel mills would help meet domestic and global demand for steel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would impact 761 acres of wetlands, 30 state-listed plant species, 41 acres of farmland soils, and 560 acres of forest. Sulfate concentrations in Swan Lake would increase by a projected 2.6 mg/L over the No Action Alternative and could affect wild rice resources. Emissions, including sulfur dioxide and particulate matter, would have significant impacts on air quality and potential for mercury bioaccumulation in fish. The 300-foot increase in height of stockpiles and the 58-foot increase in height of the tailings basin would have visual impacts. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0397D, Volume 33, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100448, Final EIS--548 pages, Figures--73 maps, Appendices--763 pages and maps, November 12, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Crushing and Grinding KW - Emission Control KW - Emissions KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Health Hazard Analyses KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Iron Ores KW - Metals KW - Mines KW - Mining KW - Nitrogen Oxides KW - Reclamation (Mining) KW - Sulfur Dioxide KW - Tailings KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16372432?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-12&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=U.S.+STEEL+KEETAC+MINE+EXPANSION+PROJECT%2C+ITASCA+AND+ST.+LOUIS+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, St. Paul, Minnesota; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: November 12, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 6 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133692; 14712-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 5 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133689; 14712-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133689?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 4 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133687; 14712-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133687?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 23 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133440; 14712-2_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133440?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 22 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133437; 14712-2_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 20 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133393; 14712-2_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133393?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 19 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133390; 14712-2_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133390?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 13 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133385; 14712-2_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133385?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 3 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133381; 14712-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133381?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 2 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133371; 14712-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133371?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 1 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873133364; 14712-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873133364?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 9 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132718; 14712-2_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132718?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 8 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132716; 14712-2_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132716?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 7 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132712; 14712-2_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132712?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 21 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132649; 14712-2_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132649?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 11 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132023; 14712-2_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132023?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 10 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873132017; 14712-2_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873132017?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 18 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131709; 14712-2_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 17 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131705; 14712-2_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131705?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 16 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131701; 14712-2_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 15 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131694; 14712-2_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131694?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 14 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131692; 14712-2_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131692?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 12 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873131688; 14712-2_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873131688?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). [Part 24 of 24] T2 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 873130427; 14712-2_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/873130427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - EAST LINK PROJECT, SEATTLE, KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF DECEMBER 2008). AN - 839582064; 14712 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of an 18-mile eastern extension of light rail transit (LRT) is proposed to enhance transportation in the Central Puget Sound metropolitan region of King County, Washington. The East Link LRT Project would connect to the rail's system's initial segment in downtown Seattle and extend east to Mercer Island, Bellevue, and Redmond. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes new alternatives and design modifications and supplements the 2008 draft EIS for the project. The project corridor has been divided into five segments along distinct geographic boundaries. Alternatives considered include 24 build alternatives (one in Segment A, six in Segment B, ten in Segment C, four in Segment D, and three in Segment E), the No Build Alternative, and four maintenance facility alternatives (three in Segment D and one in Segment E). Each alternative route includes one to four stations; a total of 29 station options exist in the five segments. Segment A begins in the downtown Seattle transit Tunnel at the International District/Chinatown Station and extends eastward on Interstate 90 (I-90) across north Beacon Hill and Rainier Valley, then travels on the I-90 floating bridge across Lake Washington to Mercer Island. The 6.9-mile route remains on I-90 across Mercer Island and Lake Washington to south Bellevue. Segment B travels from the I-90 center roadway northward to approximately SE 6th Street. A new alternative in Segment B, the preferred 112th SE Modified Alternative (B2M), leaves the I-90 center roadway at Bellevue Way SE and continues north adjacent to Bellevue Way SE and then along 112th Avenue SE. Segment C extends between SE 6th and NE 12th Streets and transitions from the primarily suburban single-family residential and commercial area of south Bellevue to the dense, urban central business district of downtown Bellevue. Key destinations in Segment C are Bellevue's downtown core and transit center and, on the east side of I-405, the Overlake Hospital and Group Health medical centers. Segment D is located within the Bel-Red subarea of Bellevue and the Overlake neighborhood of Redmond. A potential tail track could extend past the Overlake Transit Center or within the Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway corridor near the Segment C/D connection. The preferred Alternative D2A has been modified from the 2008 draft EIS by shifting the route in the 120th Station area to the north, remaining adjacent to State Route (SR) 520 north of NE 24th Street and moving the Overlake Village Station along SR 520. Segment E travels parallel to SR 520 north and east into Downtown Redmond. The preferred Alternative E2 for this segment has been modified by replacing the Town Center Station and the Transit Center Station with one Downtown Station located midway between the two original stations, adding an 800-foot-long tail track for train layover and turnback operations, and discontinuing the alignment up 161st Avenue NE. The project may be constructed in phases beginning by 2013 to 2014, with the segment to Bellevue planned for opening by 2020 and to Overlake Transit Center planned for 2021. Segment E to Downtown Redmond is planned to be constructed after 2021. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The East Link LRT system would improve the speed and reliability of the regional transportation network and expand network capacity. Diversion of commuters and other travelers from automobiles to cleaner, more efficient rail transport would reduce congestion on regional highways and roads and reduce future air pollutant emissions. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Project development would require the displacement of residences and businesses, land in recreational use, including parkland, and open space, as well as historically significant structures and archaeological sites. The transit facilities would alter visual aesthetics along the chosen corridors and utilities would have to be relocated in some areas. Construction workers would encounter hazardous waste sites. With respect to the natural environment, the project would impact wetlands and other wildlife habitats. 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 abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0079D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100442, Executive Summary--36 pages, Supplemental Draft EIS--347 pages, November 5, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Central Business Districts KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Noise Assessments KW - Open Space KW - Parks KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Section 6(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Transportation Surveys KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Washington KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Historic Sites KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding 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/839582064?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-11-05&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.title=EAST+LINK+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+KING+COUNTY%2C+WASHINGTON+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+DECEMBER+2008%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: November 5, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Subsurface geology of the Dallas Floodway, Dallas, TX AN - 911678793; 2012-006569 AB - A subsurface investigation was performed as part of a larger geomorphic study of the Dallas Floodway. Local stratigraphy was characterized using historical soil borings from the 1930s to present together with Cone Penetrometer Test (CPT) data. The CPT is a geotechnical engineering tool for characterizing soil at 1/2 inch depth intervals. Using CPT data it is possible to generate depth plots and highly detailed cross sections of predicted soil types, soil strength, permeability, etc. Bedrock within the area is Cretaceous in age, and is comprised of the Eagle Ford Shale and the Austin Chalk Formation. The Austin Chalk is present only in the easternmost part of the Floodway. Soil borings and CPT data show a fining upward sequence, with an apparent semi-continuous basal gravel and sand layer uncomformably overlying bedrock. Finer sediments overlie the basal sand and gravel, and in some areas the shallow subsurface has been modified and re-worked for flood control. Changes in environments of deposition (e.g., backswamp, point-bar) within the floodway have been identified. The stratigraphic sequence shows the system's response to climatic variations over the last several thousand years, as well as more recent anthropogenic influences. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Roig-Silva, Carla AU - Olsen, Richard S AU - Haugen, Benjamin D AU - Manning, Ashley R AU - Dunbar, Joseph B AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Pearson, Monte L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 536 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - penetration tests KW - geologic hazards KW - Austin Chalk KW - Cretaceous KW - Holocene KW - Upper Cretaceous KW - Cenozoic KW - floods KW - depositional environment KW - climate KW - soils KW - bedrock KW - Quaternary KW - strength KW - human activity KW - cone penetration tests KW - Texas KW - Eagle Ford Formation KW - Mesozoic KW - Dallas County Texas KW - Dallas Texas KW - Dallas Floodway KW - natural hazards KW - Gulfian KW - geomorphology KW - permeability KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911678793?accountid=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+geology+of+the+Dallas+Floodway%2C+Dallas%2C+TX&rft.au=Roig-Silva%2C+Carla%3BOlsen%2C+Richard+S%3BHaugen%2C+Benjamin+D%3BManning%2C+Ashley+R%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BPearson%2C+Monte+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Roig-Silva&rft.aufirst=Carla&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=536&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, 2010 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 - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Austin Chalk; bedrock; Cenozoic; climate; cone penetration tests; Cretaceous; Dallas County Texas; Dallas Floodway; Dallas Texas; depositional environment; Eagle Ford Formation; floods; geologic hazards; geomorphology; Gulfian; Holocene; human activity; Mesozoic; natural hazards; penetration tests; permeability; Quaternary; soils; strength; Texas; United States; Upper Cretaceous ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Lateral discontinuities on the pre-engineered Missouri River AN - 911677613; 2012-006484 AB - The physical structure of modern-day large rivers often bears little resemblance to the pre-disturbance condition, and this radical transformation makes restoration targets difficult to delineate. In particular, the lateral dimensions of river form and connectivity are difficult to reconstruct due to intensive development of floodplain surfaces. Yet recently, the restoration of lateral connectivity has received increased attention thanks to the better understanding of its role in overall river ecosystem health. This paper presents the results of an exhaustive historical reconstruction of lateral side channel extent on the Missouri River between Kansas City and St. Louis. We use 1879 and 1894 Missouri River Commission surveys and 1928 aerial photographs to locate and digitize all side channels, quantifying metrics of side channel frequency and size along the river, giving us a better understanding of the pre-engineered lateral discontinuity of the Missouri River. Finally, we incorporate this data into a new conceptual model of lateral discontinuity intended to help guide side channel restoration on large rivers. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Daniels, Melinda AU - Hooke, Lisa AU - Sheeley, Jason AU - Brown, Tracy AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 520 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - hydrology KW - Missouri River KW - Missouri KW - floodplains KW - connectivity KW - channels KW - ecosystems KW - Cowley County Kansas KW - Arkansas City Kansas KW - rivers KW - engineering geology KW - Kansas KW - fluvial features KW - theoretical models KW - aerial photography KW - reconstruction KW - Kansas City Missouri KW - remote sensing KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/911677613?accountid=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=Lateral+discontinuities+on+the+pre-engineered+Missouri+River&rft.au=Daniels%2C+Melinda%3BHooke%2C+Lisa%3BSheeley%2C+Jason%3BBrown%2C+Tracy%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Daniels&rft.aufirst=Melinda&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=520&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, 2010 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 - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - aerial photography; Arkansas City Kansas; channels; connectivity; Cowley County Kansas; ecosystems; engineering geology; floodplains; fluvial features; hydrology; Kansas; Kansas City Missouri; Missouri; Missouri River; reconstruction; remote sensing; rivers; theoretical models; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - The great Red River Raft and its sedimentological implications AN - 902080894; 2011-097005 AB - The presence and clearing of the Red River Raft influenced the historic geomorphic evolution of the Red River and the Atchafalaya basin. The purpose of this document is to present a review and description of the historic and current geomorphic evolution of the Red River to the development and removal of the raft. The Red River raft was a logjam believed to have developed around 2000 years ago as the Mississippi River avulsed east capturing the Red River. A knick point developed and migrated north through the Red River promoting the growth of the raft. Several theories on how this raft developed include catastrophic flooding, climatic change and prehistoric human activities. A time line of the raft evolution has been developed that show how it modified the geomorphic character of the Red River and how deeply connected it is with the history of the settlement in the red river valley JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Torres, Nalini AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 606 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Atchafalaya River KW - avulsion KW - Red River valley KW - geologic hazards KW - landform evolution KW - knickpoints KW - climate change KW - natural hazards KW - fluvial features KW - floods KW - Red River Raft KW - Mississippi River KW - Louisiana KW - Red River KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902080894?accountid=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+great+Red+River+Raft+and+its+sedimentological+implications&rft.au=Torres%2C+Nalini%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Torres&rft.aufirst=Nalini&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=606&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, 2010 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; avulsion; climate change; floods; fluvial features; geologic hazards; knickpoints; landform evolution; Louisiana; Mississippi River; natural hazards; Red River; Red River Raft; Red River valley; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Lab data correlations with field observations in Afghanistan soils AN - 902069411; 2011-093482 AB - Shallow soil stratigraphy and its relationship to soil properties were investigated at 12 sites in Afghanistan with variable geologic settings. Field teams collected discrete soil samples at the ground surface down to a depth of 2 meters. Simultaneously, the in-situ stratigraphy of each excavated trench was logged. Lab tests such as magnetic susceptibility, moisture contents, and X-ray diffraction were performed to obtain an understanding of the undisturbed soil properties. Challenges associated with the interpretation of aridisols include an understanding of evaporative mineralogy as well as elevated erosion and sedimentation rates caused by intense and sporadic rainfall events. However, these challenges prove to be beneficial in identifying disturbances. When the ground surface is disturbed, evaporite minerals such as halite and gypsum show changes in soil properties. The identification of the evaporite minerals and expansive clays provide a complete understanding of the geology, the environment of the area from which the samples were collected, and whether the soil has been disturbed. Laboratory results were compared to the documented soils stratigraphy in the field logs. Representative sites were selected to show a correlation between soil properties and field data. The sites include calcite-rich and gypsum-rich environments. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Kelley, Julie R AU - Manning, Ashley R AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 470 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - silicates KW - halides KW - erosion rates KW - Afghanistan KW - observations KW - laboratory studies KW - sedimentary rocks KW - Indian Peninsula KW - sedimentation rates KW - gypsum KW - chlorides KW - Asia KW - soils KW - experimental studies KW - chemically precipitated rocks KW - sulfates KW - rainfall KW - properties KW - evaporites KW - halite KW - depth KW - Aridisols KW - clay minerals KW - calcite KW - identification KW - expansive materials KW - sheet silicates KW - carbonates KW - field studies KW - 25:Soils UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902069411?accountid=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=Lab+data+correlations+with+field+observations+in+Afghanistan+soils&rft.au=Kelley%2C+Julie+R%3BManning%2C+Ashley+R%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Kelley&rft.aufirst=Julie&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=470&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, 2010 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 - Afghanistan; Aridisols; Asia; calcite; carbonates; chemically precipitated rocks; chlorides; clay minerals; depth; erosion rates; evaporites; expansive materials; experimental studies; field studies; gypsum; halides; halite; identification; Indian Peninsula; laboratory studies; observations; properties; rainfall; sedimentary rocks; sedimentation rates; sheet silicates; silicates; soils; sulfates ER - TY - JOUR T1 - An analysis of loess caves used during the siege of Vicksburg AN - 902068327; 2011-093420 AB - The loess caves of Vicksburg became famous during the American Civil War due to the unique properties of the material, such as the ability to take and hold a vertical cut. Historic accounts of those like Mary Webster Loughborough describe life in these caves and shed light on the strength of loess. During the siege, Ulysses S. Grant kept the city under constant cannon bombardment forcing the general population to take refuge in loess caves dug into hillsides. Loess' unique ability to withstand a vertical cut allowed the civilian population to excavate semi-bombproof shelters that were generally capable of withstanding all but a direct hit from cannon fire. Also, these shelters had the ability to stand for many years without slumping. Typically, a loess cave had more than one entrance which allowed for ventilation as well as multiple escape routes. The caves provided adequate protection; however, they were not always safe and indiscriminant shelling of the hillsides disturbed the loess thereby causing the caves to collapse and bury its occupants. The size of the caves varied drastically. Some were barely large enough to house a small family while others were reported to be large enough to accommodate two hundred people. Due to loess' unique physical properties, it is still accepted as a primitive form of human habitation even today. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Bufkin, Amber L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 459 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Siege of Vicksburg KW - clastic sediments KW - caves KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - Gulf Coastal Plain KW - wars KW - history KW - physical properties KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - sediments KW - loess KW - American Civil War KW - solution features KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/902068327?accountid=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=An+analysis+of+loess+caves+used+during+the+siege+of+Vicksburg&rft.au=Bufkin%2C+Amber+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Bufkin&rft.aufirst=Amber&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=459&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, 2010 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 - American Civil War; caves; clastic sediments; Gulf Coastal Plain; history; loess; Mississippi; physical properties; sediments; Siege of Vicksburg; solution features; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi; wars ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Paleo-erosional features of the Trinity River floodplain in Dallas, Texas AN - 898175623; 2011-086638 AB - Two- and three-dimensional terrain maps of a section of the Trinity River in the Dallas metropolitan area were created from discrete geologic boring data and light detection and ranging (LIDAR) imagery. The terrain maps were then used to identify and analyze the relationships between paleo-erosional features at depth and in adjacent river terraces. Subsurface terrain maps show large paleo-channels deeply incised in Late Cretaceous-age bedrock overlain by more recent fluvial sediments. Channel dimensions suggest that the Trinity River once had a significantly higher discharge rate than at present. The observed erosional unconformity is thus attributed to a high-energy, erosion-dominated depositional environment that occurred as a result of a drop in base level. This conclusion confirms the existence of an erosional unconformity between the Eagle Ford Shale and Austin Chalk units, and overlying fluvial sediments. Surface terrain maps show numerous cut-bank features in the terraces adjacent to the floodplain. These features are attributed to paleo-channel migration in a higher-energy meandering river system. Differences in elevation and morphology between features indicate that they are of different ages. Surface and subsurface morphology indicate that there is a relationship between the incised paleo-channels and terrace cut-banks. This relationship may be used to accurately determine the age of the various meander belts within the Trinity River Floodplain. Accurate determination of the age, morphology, and spatial relationships of observed paleo-erosional features is necessary to constrain the geologic history of the Trinity River Floodplain. The methods used in this study may provide a framework for similar investigations in metropolitan areas where surface expressions of morphologic features are obscured by anthropogenic activities. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Haugen, Benjamin D AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Dunbar, Joseph B AU - Roig-Silva, Carla AU - Manning, Ashley R AU - Olsen, Richard S AU - Pearson, Monte L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 241 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - imagery KW - laser methods KW - Austin Chalk KW - Cretaceous KW - floodplains KW - mapping KW - erosion features KW - terraces KW - Upper Cretaceous KW - Trinity River KW - depositional environment KW - meanders KW - human activity KW - elevation KW - paleochannels KW - radar methods KW - channels KW - Texas KW - Eagle Ford Formation KW - Mesozoic KW - Dallas County Texas KW - Dallas Texas KW - lidar methods KW - fluvial features KW - Gulfian KW - unconformities KW - 23:Geomorphology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898175623?accountid=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=Paleo-erosional+features+of+the+Trinity+River+floodplain+in+Dallas%2C+Texas&rft.au=Haugen%2C+Benjamin+D%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B%3BRoig-Silva%2C+Carla%3BManning%2C+Ashley+R%3BOlsen%2C+Richard+S%3BPearson%2C+Monte+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Haugen&rft.aufirst=Benjamin&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=241&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, 2010 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 - Austin Chalk; channels; Cretaceous; Dallas County Texas; Dallas Texas; depositional environment; Eagle Ford Formation; elevation; erosion features; floodplains; fluvial features; Gulfian; human activity; imagery; laser methods; lidar methods; mapping; meanders; Mesozoic; paleochannels; radar methods; terraces; Texas; Trinity River; unconformities; United States; Upper Cretaceous ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Identifying potential levee seepage blowout locations using modern geoscience tools AN - 898160374; 2011-086857 AB - A geomorphology study was performed for the Dallas County reach of the Trinity River in Dallas, Texas. The complex system was characterized with geospatial tools such as ArcGIS and Google Earth. Geomorphic data, soil borings, cone penetrometer test (CPT) data, and historical information were incorporated into a geospatial database. The final result was a highly detailed geomorphic map, which was used to identify areas of potential levee blowouts. Continuous clean sands or gravels under a levee can allow high velocity water flows to instigate a blowout. The digitally generated geomorphologic map documents wide zones for potential sandbar deposits (i.e. potential clean sands and gravels). CPT data was used to delineate actual sandbar deposit locations. Soil borings were used to confirm the underlying stratigraphy of the area. This data was also used to further differentiate the geologic boundaries previously mapped by the United States Geological Survey (USGS). This integrated procedure creates a more comprehensive analysis of potential risk. Unlike other hazard maps, this geomorphic map is the next step towards a better risk assessment of levee failures. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Olsen, Richard S AU - Manning, Ashley R AU - Dunbar, Joseph B AU - Roig-Silva, Carla AU - Haugen, Benjamin D AU - Harrelson, Danny W AU - Pearson, Monte L AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 279 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - soils KW - failures KW - penetrometers KW - geologic hazards KW - spatial data KW - ArcGIS KW - Texas KW - seepage KW - Dallas County Texas KW - levees KW - Dallas Texas KW - Trinity River KW - geographic information systems KW - Google Earth KW - identification KW - natural hazards KW - risk assessment KW - information systems KW - geomorphology KW - blowouts KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/898160374?accountid=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=Identifying+potential+levee+seepage+blowout+locations+using+modern+geoscience+tools&rft.au=Olsen%2C+Richard+S%3BManning%2C+Ashley+R%3BDunbar%2C+Joseph+B%3BRoig-Silva%2C+Carla%3BHaugen%2C+Benjamin+D%3BHarrelson%2C+Danny+W%3BPearson%2C+Monte+L%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Olsen&rft.aufirst=Richard&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=279&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, 2010 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 - ArcGIS; blowouts; Dallas County Texas; Dallas Texas; failures; geographic information systems; geologic hazards; geomorphology; Google Earth; identification; information systems; levees; natural hazards; penetrometers; risk assessment; seepage; soils; spatial data; Texas; Trinity River; United States ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Identification, characterization and quantification of natural occurring asbestos in serpentinites of southwest Puerto Rico; preliminary results AN - 869790131; 2011-047822 AB - Natural occurring asbestos (NOA) occur in ultramafic bodies and had been found in serpentinites to the extent of being regulated by some US states (e.g., California), and being in process of development in states. Regulation of NOA in Puerto Rico serpentinites does not exist at the present time. In order to establish the need for regulation, a general survey determining the occurrence of asbestos in PR, needs to be done and is the purpose of this study. Preliminary data are presented and suggest the occurrence of chrysotile asbestos as the only or principal asbestos mineral found on the serpentinites. The occurrence is on the range of 2 to 5 vol. % by the point counting method. Samples analyzed include outcrops in Sabana Grande and Cabo Rojo. Future analyses include more sampling evaluation, NIOSH 9200 Polarizing Light Microscopy standard for asbestos identification, and SEM imaging of the fibers. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Roig-Silva, Carla AU - Joyce, James AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 220 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - silicates KW - metaigneous rocks KW - southwestern Puerto Rico KW - Greater Antilles KW - geologic hazards KW - Cabo Rojo Puerto Rico KW - asbestos KW - characterization KW - West Indies KW - Caribbean region KW - Sabana Grande Puerto Rico KW - Antilles KW - serpentinite KW - Puerto Rico KW - point counts KW - identification KW - metamorphic rocks KW - natural hazards KW - surveys KW - outcrops KW - metasomatic rocks KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/869790131?accountid=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=Identification%2C+characterization+and+quantification+of+natural+occurring+asbestos+in+serpentinites+of+southwest+Puerto+Rico%3B+preliminary+results&rft.au=Roig-Silva%2C+Carla%3BJoyce%2C+James%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Roig-Silva&rft.aufirst=Carla&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=220&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, 2010 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 - Antilles; asbestos; Cabo Rojo Puerto Rico; Caribbean region; characterization; geologic hazards; Greater Antilles; identification; metaigneous rocks; metamorphic rocks; metasomatic rocks; natural hazards; outcrops; point counts; Puerto Rico; Sabana Grande Puerto Rico; serpentinite; silicates; southwestern Puerto Rico; surveys; West Indies ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Twentieth-century mass balance of Arapaho Glacier, Front Range, Colorado AN - 869789425; 2011-047871 AB - Changes in the thickness, extent, and volume of Arapaho Glacier during twentieth century were determined using historical maps and data, aerial photography, ground penetrating radar (GPR) surveys, and Global Positioning System (GPS) data. Between 1900 and 1999, Arapaho Glacier lost 52% of its area, decreasing in extent from 0.34 to 0.16 km (super 2) . During the same period, area loss rates increased from 1.5 to 2.4 X 10 (super -3) m (super 2) yr (super -1) . Maximum ice thickness in Fall 2007 was 15.5 m. Average ice thicknesses in 1900, 1960, and 2007 were 61, 16, and 11 m, respectively. Average thinning between 1900 and 1960 was 0.76 m yr (super -1) . Thinning slowed to 0.10 m yr (super -1) between 1960 and 2005. Total ice volume at the end of the twentieth century was approximately 1.8 X 10 (super -3) km (super 3) , compared with volumes of 3.9 X 10 (super -3) km (super 3) in 1960, and 21 X 10 (super -3) km (super 3) in 1900. Glacier-wide mass balance between 1900 and 1960 was -2.8 X 10 (super 5) m (super 3) yr (super -1) . Mass balance was more negative between 1960 and the end of the century, ranging between -4.5 and -5.4 X 104 m (super 3) yr (super -1) . These data suggest that while area loss increased significantly during the twentieth century, thinning decreased and glacier-wide mass balance became considerably less negative. The distribution of snow accumulation and solar loading on the glacier's surface due to its orientation and position in a deep high-altitude cirque may explain this peculiar pattern of retreat. Measurements suggest that Arapaho Glacier is receding into a corner of its upper cirque, where high accumulation from direct precipitation, wind drifting, and avalanches, and low insolation will slow or stop its retreat. This may generally be true for many small temperate-latitude alpine glaciers. Because of their impact on local water budgets, the relationships observed between changes in area, thickness, and overall mass balance at Arapaho Glacier should be taken into account in planning for future water resources. Observed patterns of retreat may also have implications for glacial and climate studies. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Haugen, Benjamin D AU - Scambos, Ted A AU - Anderson, Robert S AU - Pfeffer, W Tad AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 228 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Global Positioning System KW - terrestrial environment KW - Front Range KW - ground-penetrating radar KW - altitude KW - mapping KW - deglaciation KW - mass balance KW - snow KW - thickness KW - cirques KW - alpine environment KW - orientation KW - Arapaho Glacier KW - radar methods KW - glaciers KW - rates KW - water balance KW - glacial features KW - volume KW - insolation KW - aerial photography KW - glacial geology KW - Colorado KW - water resources KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/869789425?accountid=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=Twentieth-century+mass+balance+of+Arapaho+Glacier%2C+Front+Range%2C+Colorado&rft.au=Haugen%2C+Benjamin+D%3BScambos%2C+Ted+A%3BAnderson%2C+Robert+S%3BPfeffer%2C+W+Tad%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Haugen&rft.aufirst=Benjamin&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=228&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, 2010 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 - aerial photography; alpine environment; altitude; Arapaho Glacier; cirques; Colorado; deglaciation; Front Range; glacial features; glacial geology; glaciers; Global Positioning System; ground-penetrating radar; insolation; mapping; mass balance; orientation; radar methods; rates; snow; terrestrial environment; thickness; United States; volume; water balance; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Late Pleistocene to early Holocene terrace deposits of the lower Cheyenne River, South Dakota AN - 868011016; 2011-043905 AB - The Cheyenne River is a tributary to the Missouri River with its headwaters in the Black Hills of South Dakota and Wyoming. The Farmingdale terrace is the youngest of three regionally-recognized terraces along the Cheyenne River. The height of the Farmingdale terrace above the active channel increases in the downstream direction. We studied four Farmingdale terrace sites on the lower Cheyenne River at 199 to 108 river kilometers upstream from the confluence with the Missouri River, rising from approximately 77 to 85 meters above the channel. Alluvial-sediment samples were collected at these sites to determine the ages of terraces using optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) and radiocarbon dating techniques. Five OSL dates from samples collected at upstream terrace sites ranged from 6.1 thousand years ago (ka) to 16.5 ka. Two radiocarbon samples collected from sediment near the base of the terrace at 199 river kilometers yielded ages of 27.8 ka and 32.0 ka. Previous studies of terrace deposits on the lower Cheyenne River include OSL dates that range from 8.3 ka to 14.1 ka on a terrace approximately 75 meters above the channel at 16 river kilometers upstream from the Missouri River confluence. These data indicate Holocene incision rates on the order of 2.4 to 12.7 meters per 1000 years for the lower Cheyenne River. Examination of U.S. Geological Survey streamgage records since 1914 on the lower Cheyenne River at Wasta, SD indicates an incision rate of 3.2 meters per 1000 years. Causes of these high incision rates remain unclear but may include climate change, regional uplift, stream capture, removal of glacial dams on the Missouri River, and glacial isostatic rebound. Stream capture may be of particular importance. For example, the capture of the ancient headwaters of the Little Missouri River by the Belle Fourche River, a tributary of the lower Cheyenne River that drains the northern Black Hills, increased the Cheyenne River watershed area by nearly 20 percent. Timing of this event is critical in the understanding of the dynamics of the Cheyenne River system. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Stamm, John F AU - Hendricks, Robert AU - Mahan, Shannon A AU - Zaprowski, Brent J AU - Geibel, Nicholas M AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 181 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - lower Holocene KW - isotopes KW - Black Hills KW - erosion rates KW - terraces KW - Holocene KW - upper Pleistocene KW - Cenozoic KW - radioactive isotopes KW - optically stimulated luminescence KW - dates KW - carbon KW - sediments KW - absolute age KW - Cheyenne River KW - Quaternary KW - clastic sediments KW - channels KW - stream capture KW - Pleistocene KW - alluvium KW - C-14 KW - South Dakota KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868011016?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Abstracts+with+Programs+-+Geological+Society+of+America&rft.atitle=Late+Pleistocene+to+early+Holocene+terrace+deposits+of+the+lower+Cheyenne+River%2C+South+Dakota&rft.au=Stamm%2C+John+F%3BHendricks%2C+Robert%3BMahan%2C+Shannon+A%3BZaprowski%2C+Brent+J%3BGeibel%2C+Nicholas+M%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Stamm&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=181&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, 2010 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 - absolute age; alluvium; Black Hills; C-14; carbon; Cenozoic; channels; Cheyenne River; clastic sediments; dates; erosion rates; Holocene; isotopes; lower Holocene; optically stimulated luminescence; Pleistocene; Quaternary; radioactive isotopes; sediments; South Dakota; stream capture; terraces; United States; upper Pleistocene ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Collaborative modeling; sustainable resource management through technically informed participatory decision support processes AN - 864945682; 2011-042030 AB - The presence of complex, interconnected social and natural systems with inherent uncertainties create an important role for stakeholders (those who are affected by, can affect, or have interest in the decision) in any decision process intended to lead us to more sustainable management of our natural resources. A participatory process that is well supported by sound science may produce better decisions by balancing multiple interests and identifying feasible and acceptable options. Collaborative modeling can support good decision making if done well. Three principles for effective collaborative modeling principles are illustrated with examples from an exploration of water resources and climate change futures in the Okanagan Basin, Canada. Dr. Forster mentored and assisted me through this project. First and foremost, stakeholders are involved in model development early and often. Stakeholders should help to define the scope of the problem, including the range of issues that are relevant to the decision at hand. In the Okanagan case, stakeholders participated in six meetings over the course of one year. They helped to define the issues, scales, and developed influence diagrams before reviewing iterative versions of a computer model. Second, the computer model is accessible and transparent to stakeholders. Stakeholders who are involved become familiar with the model's content and can provide feedback to the modeler in ways to improve its clarity. However, the modeler must provide ample documentation and design an intuitive user interface. For the Okanagan, we used STELLA software that has a graphical model interface. Dr. Forster designed colorful user interface pages that that guided users through choosing scenarios and alternatives, and contained interactive controllers and output graphs. Third, the model and the process must support the decision. Keep the level of detail and all efforts appropriate for and relevant to the project purpose. The Okanagan case's purpose was to explore and discuss future scenarios and management options. The Okanagan Basin Water Board cited the study in their 2008 Sustainable Action Strategy report, evidence that the dialogue and model output are being considered by decision makers in the region. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - Langsdale, Stacy AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 147 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - models KW - computer programs KW - North America KW - natural resources KW - Canada KW - sustainable development KW - decision-making KW - water resources KW - Okanagan Valley KW - 21:Hydrogeology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/864945682?accountid=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=Collaborative+modeling%3B+sustainable+resource+management+through+technically+informed+participatory+decision+support+processes&rft.au=Langsdale%2C+Stacy%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=Langsdale&rft.aufirst=Stacy&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=147&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, 2010 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 - Canada; computer programs; decision-making; models; natural resources; North America; Okanagan Valley; sustainable development; water resources ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Steel-shot method for measuring the density of soils AN - 855197678; 2011-026360 AB - The density of soil is crucial in engineering, construction, and research. Standard methods to determine density use procedures, equipment or expendable materials that limit their effectiveness in challenging field conditions. Some methods require burdensome logistics or have time requirements that limit their use or the number of tests that can be executed. A test method, similar to the sand-cone method, was developed that uses steel shot as the material to which a volume of soil is compared to calculate soil density. Steel shot is easily recovered and reused, eliminating the need for specialty sand and calibrated cones or containers, and allows rapid determination of the volume of displaced soil. Excavated soil also provides measurements of total mass and moisture content. Volume, mass, and moisture content are applied in simple calculations to determine wet and dry densities and unit weight of the soil. Proficiency in performing the test can be achieved with minimal training, and the required kit can be assembled for a reasonable cost. Field uses of the method in dry environments in a variety of soil types demonstrated that the method can produce repeatable results within 2% of the values of soil density determined by traditional methods, with advantages in logistics. JF - Canadian Geotechnical Journal = Revue Canadienne de Geotechnique AU - Freeman, Reed B AU - Gartrell, Chad A AU - Wakeley, Lillian D AU - Berney, Ernest S AU - Kelley, Julie R Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 1299 EP - 1304 PB - National Research Council of Canada, Ottawa, ON VL - 47 IS - 11 SN - 0008-3674, 0008-3674 KW - United States KW - soil mechanics KW - sand KW - density KW - Australasia KW - clastic sediments KW - Warren County Mississippi KW - Mississippi KW - standardization KW - silt KW - Northern Territory Australia KW - measurement KW - Vicksburg Mississippi KW - sediments KW - Australia KW - Asia KW - construction KW - Middle East KW - field studies KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/855197678?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.atitle=Steel-shot+method+for+measuring+the+density+of+soils&rft.au=Freeman%2C+Reed+B%3BGartrell%2C+Chad+A%3BWakeley%2C+Lillian+D%3BBerney%2C+Ernest+S%3BKelley%2C+Julie+R&rft.aulast=Freeman&rft.aufirst=Reed&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=47&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1299&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Canadian+Geotechnical+Journal+%3D+Revue+Canadienne+de+Geotechnique&rft.issn=00083674&rft_id=info:doi/10.1139%2FT10-034 L2 - http://pubs.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/rp-ps/journalDetail.jsp?jcode=cgj&lang=eng LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 14 N1 - PubXState - ON N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 4 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - CGJOAH N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Asia; Australasia; Australia; clastic sediments; construction; density; field studies; measurement; Middle East; Mississippi; Northern Territory Australia; sand; sediments; silt; soil mechanics; standardization; United States; Vicksburg Mississippi; Warren County Mississippi DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1139/T10-034 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Investigation of Laboratory Procedure for Evaluating Chemical Dust Palliative Performance AN - 849465209; 14095078 AB - An experimental testing protocol was developed to compare the relative effectiveness of chemical dust palliatives. The methods and application simulate field construction using commercial spray components. The test devices were constructed to simulate wind speeds and conditions for rotary wing aircraft. Fifteen chemical dust suppressants were evaluated using this methodology. These commercial products were applied topically to prepared soil specimens and allowed to cure for one and 48 h. Effectiveness was determined from the relative mass loss of the soil samples from erosion when samples were subjected to an air impingement device. An optical dust sensor was installed in the test device to measure airborne dust concentrations as an additional method for quantifying performance. A method to disturb the treated soil surface was also introduced to simulate the effect of traffic. Select application rates of the palliatives were used in sample preparation to identify minimal quantities necessary for the desired performance. The testing equipment and processes provided a rapid screening methodology for selecting potential dust palliatives. Results indicated good correlation between erosion and airborne dust concentrations with higher application rates and complete curing of materials demonstrating reduced dust levels. The traffic simulation test identified products with a propensity to form surface crusts that may be disturbed by traffic. JF - Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering AU - Rushing, John F AU - Newman, Kent AD - Research Physical Scientist, Airfields and Pavements Branch, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180, john.f.rushing@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 1148 EP - 1155 PB - American Society of Civil Engineers, 345 E. 47th St. New York NY 10017-2398 USA VL - 22 IS - 11 SN - 0899-1561, 0899-1561 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Dust KW - Chemicals KW - Full-scale tests KW - Military engineering KW - Highways and roads KW - Soil stabilization KW - Airports and airfields KW - Biological surveys KW - Atmospheric particulates KW - Airborne sensing KW - Sprays KW - Wings KW - Soil erosion KW - Dusts KW - Soil Surfaces KW - Methodology KW - Sample Preparation KW - Civil Engineering KW - Erosion KW - Engineering KW - Roads KW - Aircraft KW - Soils KW - Eolian dust KW - Q2 09102:Institutes and organizations KW - SW 5040:Data acquisition UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/849465209?accountid=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+Materials+in+Civil+Engineering&rft.atitle=Investigation+of+Laboratory+Procedure+for+Evaluating+Chemical+Dust+Palliative+Performance&rft.au=Rushing%2C+John+F%3BNewman%2C+Kent&rft.aulast=Rushing&rft.aufirst=John&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=22&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1148&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Materials+in+Civil+Engineering&rft.issn=08991561&rft_id=info:doi/10.1061%2F%28ASCE%29MT.1943-5533.0000122 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2016-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2017-02-15 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biological surveys; Airborne sensing; Atmospheric particulates; Soils; Wings; Soil erosion; Dust; Eolian dust; Methodology; Civil Engineering; Sample Preparation; Engineering; Erosion; Roads; Aircraft; Sprays; Dusts; Soil Surfaces DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000122 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quantifying large-scale historical formation of accommodation in the Mississippi Delta AN - 840345832; 2011-010372 AB - Large volumes of new accommodation have formed within the Mississippi Delta plain since the mid-1950s in association with rapid conversion of coastal wetlands to open water. The three-dimensional aspects and processes responsible for accommodation formation were quantified by comparing surface elevations, water depths, and vertical displacements of stratigraphic contacts that were correlated between short sediment cores. Integration of data from remotely sensed images, sediment cores, and water-depth surveys at 10 geologically diverse areas in the delta plain provided a basis for estimating the total volume of accommodation formed by interior-wetland subsidence and subsequent erosion. Results indicate that at most of the study areas subsidence was a greater contributor than erosion to the formation of accommodation associated with wetland loss. Tens of millions of cubic meters of accommodation formed rapidly at each of the large open-water bodies that were formerly continuous interior delta-plain marsh. Together the individual study areas account for more than 440X10 (super 6) m (super 3) of new accommodation that formed as holes in the Mississippi River delta-plain fabric between 1956 and 2004. This large volume provides an estimate of the new sediment that would be needed just at the study areas to restore the delta-plain wetlands to their pre-1956 areal extent and elevations. Published 2010. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA. Abstract Copyright (2010), John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. JF - Earth Surface Processes and Landforms AU - Morton, Robert A AU - Bernier, Julie C AU - Kelso, Kyle W AU - Barras, John A Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 1625 EP - 1641 PB - Wiley, Chichester VL - 35 IS - 14 SN - 0197-9337, 0197-9337 KW - United States KW - isotopes KW - erosion KW - subsidence KW - Lafourche Parish Louisiana KW - Terrebonne Basin KW - Holocene KW - stable isotopes KW - Jefferson Parish Louisiana KW - cores KW - modern KW - Cenozoic KW - quantitative analysis KW - levels KW - sedimentation rates KW - carbon KW - Barataria Basin KW - sediments KW - thickness KW - Louisiana KW - Terrebonne Parish Louisiana KW - southeastern Louisiana KW - Quaternary KW - marshes KW - isotope ratios KW - deltaic sedimentation KW - C-13/C-12 KW - sedimentation KW - Mississippi Delta KW - shorelines KW - depth KW - sea-level changes KW - mires KW - wetlands KW - Plaquemines Parish Louisiana KW - bathymetry KW - accommodation zones KW - upper Holocene KW - cross sections KW - 24:Quaternary geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/840345832?accountid=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=Earth+Surface+Processes+and+Landforms&rft.atitle=Quantifying+large-scale+historical+formation+of+accommodation+in+the+Mississippi+Delta&rft.au=Morton%2C+Robert+A%3BBernier%2C+Julie+C%3BKelso%2C+Kyle+W%3BBarras%2C+John+A&rft.aulast=Morton&rft.aufirst=Robert&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=35&rft.issue=14&rft.spage=1625&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Earth+Surface+Processes+and+Landforms&rft.issn=01979337&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fesp.2000 L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/117935722/grouphome/home.html 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 - 31 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 3 tables, sketch map N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - ESPRDT N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - accommodation zones; Barataria Basin; bathymetry; C-13/C-12; carbon; Cenozoic; cores; cross sections; deltaic sedimentation; depth; erosion; Holocene; isotope ratios; isotopes; Jefferson Parish Louisiana; Lafourche Parish Louisiana; levels; Louisiana; marshes; mires; Mississippi Delta; modern; Plaquemines Parish Louisiana; quantitative analysis; Quaternary; sea-level changes; sedimentation; sedimentation rates; sediments; shorelines; southeastern Louisiana; stable isotopes; subsidence; Terrebonne Basin; Terrebonne Parish Louisiana; thickness; United States; upper Holocene; wetlands DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/esp.2000 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Probabilistic seismic hazard analysis for Cherry Creek and Chatfield Dams, Denver, Colorado AN - 1015459289; 2012-046691 AB - A probabilistic seismic hazard analysis (PSHA) was performed for Cherry Creek and Chatfield Dams, located in south Denver and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The seismic source model included 13 faults in the state of Colorado and 3 areal zones. Faults along the Front Range were modeled as a continuous fault of varying dip, and the individual Golden, Rampart Range, and Ute Pass faults as alternate scenarios. Areal zones of "background" seismicity included a low activity zone in eastern Colorado, a more active zones along the Front Range and one comprising western Colorado and most of Wyoming. Next Generation Attenuation functions were used west of the Front Range-Great Plains boundary, and three central and eastern U.S. functions for sources to the east. Seismicity was derived from catalogs used to develop the 2008 U.S.G.S. National Hazard Maps, and seismicity from a local Front Range network operated by the Denver Water Board was relocated with a progressive velocity-hypocenter inversion technique. Observations from the results include a seismogenic thickness of 25 km along the Front Range and the concentration of deep hypocenters near the Pikes Peak Batholith. Microtremor refraction surveys were performed at each dam to obtain near-surface shear wave velocities. These ranged between 450 and 800 m/s. The PSHA results show the hazard at Chatfield Dam to be higher than for Cherry Creek, due it its closer distance to the more active Front Range sources (about 5 and 25 km, respectively). For Chatfield Dam the 10,000 year mean ground motions are 0.19 g for peak horizontal acceleration, and 0.15 g for 1.0 second spectral acceleration at 5% damping. For Cherry Creek Dam the results are 0.13 g and 0.11 g, respectively. The deaggregation analysis shows that for Chatfield Dam areal zones east of the Front Range-Plains boundary dominate the hazard for all return periods and spectral response periods up to 1.0 second. For Cherry Creek Dam the Front Range areal source zone generally dominates the hazard, but with the Plains areal zone and Front Range fault system becoming important at long return periods and long response periods. JF - Abstracts with Programs - Geological Society of America AU - LaForge, R AU - Ostenaa, D AU - O'Connell, Daniel R H AU - Palensky, J AU - Geibel, N AU - Anonymous Y1 - 2010/11// PY - 2010 DA - November 2010 SP - 656 PB - Geological Society of America (GSA), Boulder, CO VL - 42 IS - 5 SN - 0016-7592, 0016-7592 KW - United States KW - Denver County Colorado KW - Cherry Creek Dam KW - geologic hazards KW - Front Range KW - acceleration KW - models KW - Denver Colorado KW - natural hazards KW - ground motion KW - tectonics KW - Colorado KW - Chatfield Dam KW - earthquakes KW - seismotectonics KW - faults KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1015459289?accountid=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=Probabilistic+seismic+hazard+analysis+for+Cherry+Creek+and+Chatfield+Dams%2C+Denver%2C+Colorado&rft.au=LaForge%2C+R%3BOstenaa%2C+D%3BO%27Connell%2C+Daniel+R+H%3BPalensky%2C+J%3BGeibel%2C+N%3BAnonymous&rft.aulast=LaForge&rft.aufirst=R&rft.date=2010-11-01&rft.volume=42&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=656&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, 2010 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 - 2012-06-07 N1 - CODEN - GAAPBC N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - acceleration; Chatfield Dam; Cherry Creek Dam; Colorado; Denver Colorado; Denver County Colorado; earthquakes; faults; Front Range; geologic hazards; ground motion; models; natural hazards; seismotectonics; tectonics; United States ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). [Part 1 of 5] T2 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 873132625; 14706-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132625?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). [Part 5 of 5] T2 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 873132328; 14706-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132328?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). [Part 4 of 5] T2 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 873132318; 14706-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132318?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). [Part 3 of 5] T2 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 873131856; 14706-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131856?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). [Part 2 of 5] T2 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 873131851; 14706-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131851?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25/PASEO DEL NORTE INTERCHANGE, ALBUQUERQUE, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - I-25/PASEO DEL NORTE INTERCHANGE, ALBUQUERQUE, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 873131843; 14707-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 25 (I-25)/Paseo del Norte interchange and adjacent segments of I-25 and Paseo del Norte in Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The interchange is the crossroads of two regionally significant, high-capacity transportation facilities that serve the Albuquerque metropolitan area. I-25 is the primary north-south route and, as such, is essential to regional mobility within and through the metro area. Additionally, I-25 is part of the national highway system and also serves broader intra-state and inter-state travel needs. Paseo del Norte is a major east-west transportation thoroughfare in the northern portion of the Albuquerque urban area and is also part of the national highway system. Analyses of existing traffic operations demonstrate the need for improvements in that a substantial portion of the I-25 corridor currently operates under moderate to severe congestion. Congestion during the morning and evening peak traffic hours is widespread and affects the I-25 mainline, the Paseo del Norte mainline, and several of the ramp roadways within the project area. Six of the eight locations where ramps intersect with arterial cross streets within the project area and both of the intersections of Paseo del Norte and arterial cross streets (Jefferson Street and San Pedro Drive) are also severely congested. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 7, improvements to I-25 would extend from the Jefferson Street Interchange north to the Alameda Boulevard Interchange. The improvements to Paseo del Norte would extend from just east of the Second Street Interchange to Louisiana Boulevard. The key feature of this alternative is the proposed use of an echelon configuration in the core of the interchange at I-25 and Paseo del Norte. The echelon configuration is similar to a standard diamond interchange except that it separates opposing lanes by placing them at different levels resulting in a three-level interchange. The I-25 lanes would be on the bottom level and the westbound lanes of Paseo del Norte would be one level above the eastbound lanes. This vertical separation would eliminate conflicts between left-turning traffic and opposite direction through traffic. The extent of improvements under Alternative 16 would be the same as for Alternative 7, but a system interchange configuration would be used in the core of the interchange. The system configuration uses free-flow ramps to serve major traffic movements and thereby eliminates stops at traffic signals within the interchange core for the major movements. The free-flow ramps would accommodate specific movements by directly separating conflicts between opposing traffic movements. Local traffic would still be required to use intersections controlled by traffic signals. Construction, right-of-way acquisition, and other project costs of implementing Alternative 7 and Alternative 16, are estimated at approximately $358 million and $360 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to the interchange and adjacent segments would reduce congestion and improve safety on the interstate system, frontage roads, and associated arterial street intersections within the project area. Access to employment and other destinations served by the frontage roads and arterial streets would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of either of the build alternatives would require the acquisition of 47 to 53 acres of private property and several structures, including residences and a community well, for highway right-of-way. Under Alternative 16, the acquisition of up to 19 mobile homes within Coronado Mobile Home Park would also be required. With either alternative, the well and associated structures would be relocated, or the mobile home park could be connected to the Albuquerque municipal water supply system. Increased traffic noise resulting from changes to the alignment of major roadways would affect two mobile home parks, a hotel, and several office buildings and other developments. Analysis of noise barriers indicates that walls would be an effective noise abatement strategy for the impacted residential properties. Construction workers would encounter up to 147 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100437, 336 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NM-EIS-10-01-D KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Mobile Homes KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131843?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25%2FPASEO+DEL+NORTE+INTERCHANGE%2C+ALBUQUERQUE%2C+BERNALILLO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=I-25%2FPASEO+DEL+NORTE+INTERCHANGE%2C+ALBUQUERQUE%2C+BERNALILLO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-25/PASEO DEL NORTE INTERCHANGE, ALBUQUERQUE, BERNALILLO COUNTY, NEW MEXICO. AN - 818791644; 14707 AB - PURPOSE: The reconstruction of the Interstate 25 (I-25)/Paseo del Norte interchange and adjacent segments of I-25 and Paseo del Norte in Albuquerque, New Mexico is proposed. The interchange is the crossroads of two regionally significant, high-capacity transportation facilities that serve the Albuquerque metropolitan area. I-25 is the primary north-south route and, as such, is essential to regional mobility within and through the metro area. Additionally, I-25 is part of the national highway system and also serves broader intra-state and inter-state travel needs. Paseo del Norte is a major east-west transportation thoroughfare in the northern portion of the Albuquerque urban area and is also part of the national highway system. Analyses of existing traffic operations demonstrate the need for improvements in that a substantial portion of the I-25 corridor currently operates under moderate to severe congestion. Congestion during the morning and evening peak traffic hours is widespread and affects the I-25 mainline, the Paseo del Norte mainline, and several of the ramp roadways within the project area. Six of the eight locations where ramps intersect with arterial cross streets within the project area and both of the intersections of Paseo del Norte and arterial cross streets (Jefferson Street and San Pedro Drive) are also severely congested. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this draft EIS. Under Alternative 7, improvements to I-25 would extend from the Jefferson Street Interchange north to the Alameda Boulevard Interchange. The improvements to Paseo del Norte would extend from just east of the Second Street Interchange to Louisiana Boulevard. The key feature of this alternative is the proposed use of an echelon configuration in the core of the interchange at I-25 and Paseo del Norte. The echelon configuration is similar to a standard diamond interchange except that it separates opposing lanes by placing them at different levels resulting in a three-level interchange. The I-25 lanes would be on the bottom level and the westbound lanes of Paseo del Norte would be one level above the eastbound lanes. This vertical separation would eliminate conflicts between left-turning traffic and opposite direction through traffic. The extent of improvements under Alternative 16 would be the same as for Alternative 7, but a system interchange configuration would be used in the core of the interchange. The system configuration uses free-flow ramps to serve major traffic movements and thereby eliminates stops at traffic signals within the interchange core for the major movements. The free-flow ramps would accommodate specific movements by directly separating conflicts between opposing traffic movements. Local traffic would still be required to use intersections controlled by traffic signals. Construction, right-of-way acquisition, and other project costs of implementing Alternative 7 and Alternative 16, are estimated at approximately $358 million and $360 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements to the interchange and adjacent segments would reduce congestion and improve safety on the interstate system, frontage roads, and associated arterial street intersections within the project area. Access to employment and other destinations served by the frontage roads and arterial streets would be enhanced. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of either of the build alternatives would require the acquisition of 47 to 53 acres of private property and several structures, including residences and a community well, for highway right-of-way. Under Alternative 16, the acquisition of up to 19 mobile homes within Coronado Mobile Home Park would also be required. With either alternative, the well and associated structures would be relocated, or the mobile home park could be connected to the Albuquerque municipal water supply system. Increased traffic noise resulting from changes to the alignment of major roadways would affect two mobile home parks, a hotel, and several office buildings and other developments. Analysis of noise barriers indicates that walls would be an effective noise abatement strategy for the impacted residential properties. Construction workers would encounter up to 147 hazardous materials sites. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100437, 336 pages and maps, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-NM-EIS-10-01-D KW - Hazardous Wastes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Mobile Homes KW - Noise KW - Noise Assessments KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Transportation KW - New Mexico KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818791644?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=I-25%2FPASEO+DEL+NORTE+INTERCHANGE%2C+ALBUQUERQUE%2C+BERNALILLO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.title=I-25%2FPASEO+DEL+NORTE+INTERCHANGE%2C+ALBUQUERQUE%2C+BERNALILLO+COUNTY%2C+NEW+MEXICO.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Santa Fe, New Mexico; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA HURRICANE AND STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, HUTCHINSON ISLAND, MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA (DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF JUNE 1986). AN - 818791633; 14706 AB - PURPOSE: The utilization of a new borrow area for beach nourishment material to continue a shore protection project for Martin County, Florida is proposed. Martin County is located on Floridas east coast 100 miles north of Miami and due east of Lake Okeechobee. The coastline consists of the Hutchinson Island area, which is an elongated barrier island approximately 24.5 miles long and generally only a mile or less wide. Hutchinson Island is separated from the mainland of Florida by the Ft. Pierce and St. Lucie Inlets and the Indian River Lagoon. Martin Countys ocean front beaches extend for 21.5 miles between St. Lucie County and Palm Beach County. Hurricanes and severe storms have caused considerable erosion and damage to shoreline structures within the project area. After a final EIS was published in 1986, the Water Resources Development Act of 1990 authorized the beach nourishment project which consisted of construction of a protective and recreational beach along four miles of shorefront southward from the St. Lucie County line to near the limit of Stuart Public Beach Park. The Martin County Beach Erosion Control Project was initially constructed in 1996 with a planned periodic renourishment interval of 11 years. Federal cost-sharing is authorized for 50 years from date of initial construction and expires in 2046. The previously approved borrow area, Gilbert Shoal, has been fully utilized. Therefore, three sand shoals within portions of the St. Lucie Shoal complex located three to seven miles offshore Martin and St. Lucie counties were proposed as a potential source of beach-compatible sand. The total sand needed for the remainder of the 50-year life of the project is estimated to be between 2.4 million and 4.0 million cubic yards (mcy). The next renourishment phase is scheduled for 2012 and will involve the placement of 787,800 cubic yards (cy) of material along the four-mile project area. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are evaluated in this supplemental draft EIS. Under the preferred alternative, beach nourishment using an offshore sand source (Alternative S-3A), an 850-acre borrow area would be excavated for material. A hopper dredge would be used to excavate and transport the material just offshore of the project area, where it would be transferred hydraulically to shore via a pipeline for placement with earth-moving equipment. The 2012 cost of placing 787,800 cy of material from the proposed offshore borrow area is estimated at $9.7 million or $9.09 per cubic yard. Biological, sedimentation, and turbidity monitoring during all phases of project construction would be implemented to ensure protection of resources within and adjacent to the fill and borrow areas. Beach nourishment using an upland sand source (Alternative S-3B) is also evaluated, but could be rejected as logistically and economically unpractical as a borrow source for a large-scale nourishment project. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The shore protection project would continue after identification of suitable alternative sources of beach-compatible sand. Beach nourishment would reduce expected storm damages, re-establish beaches as suitable recreation areas, maintain suitable wildlife habitat, and benefit commerce associated with beach recreation in Martin County. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Mining the shoal would impact aquatic wildlife due to increased turbidity, sedimentation, disruption of feeding activities and migratory routes, and entrainment. Dredging operations could encounter sea turtles, West Indian manatees, and North Atlantic right whales and there would be potential for incidental take of sea turtles. Removal or disturbance of offshore sand shoals could impact coastal migratory fish species. Direct burial of 1.3 acres of nearshore hardgrounds would impact juvenile sea turtles and motile faunal fish populations. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (43 U.S.C. 1465), Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Water Resources Development Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-640). JF - EPA number: 100436, 237 pages, October 29, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Land Use KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Fisheries Surveys KW - Hurricanes KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Marine Mammals KW - Recreation Resources KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atlantic Ocean KW - Florida KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1990, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818791633?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-29&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.title=MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+HURRICANE+AND+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+HUTCHINSON+ISLAND%2C+MARTIN+COUNTY%2C+FLORIDA+%28DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+JUNE+1986%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, Florida; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 29, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 29 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133989; 14698-8_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133989?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 26 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133986; 14698-8_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133986?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 25 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133984; 14698-8_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133984?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 24 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133981; 14698-8_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133981?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 23 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133976; 14698-8_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133976?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 12 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133975; 14698-8_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133975?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 11 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133974; 14698-8_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 10 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133973; 14698-8_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133973?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 9 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133968; 14698-8_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133968?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 13 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133668; 14697-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 12 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133667; 14697-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133667?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 11 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133663; 14697-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133663?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 10 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133661; 14697-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 9 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133656; 14697-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133656?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 8 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133654; 14697-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133654?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 7 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133652; 14697-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 3 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133650; 14697-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133650?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 27 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133558; 14698-8_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133558?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 22 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133350; 14698-8_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133350?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 21 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133345; 14698-8_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133345?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 16 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133342; 14698-8_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133342?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 15 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133336; 14698-8_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133336?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 14 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133335; 14697-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133335?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 14 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133334; 14698-8_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133334?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 13 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133330; 14698-8_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133330?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 2 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133329; 14697-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 1 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873133316; 14697-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873133316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 6 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133282; 14698-8_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 5 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133273; 14698-8_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133273?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 4 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133265; 14698-8_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133265?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 2 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133250; 14698-8_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133250?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 1 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873133246; 14698-8_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133246?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 6 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132661; 14697-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873132661?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 5 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132658; 14697-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873132658?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 34 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132564; 14698-8_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132564?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 33 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132552; 14698-8_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132552?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 32 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132538; 14698-8_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 31 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132520; 14698-8_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 8 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132507; 14698-8_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 7 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873132495; 14698-8_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. [Part 4 of 14] T2 - WALLOPS FLIGHT FACILITY SHORELINE RESTORATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, WALLOPS ISLAND, VIRGINIA. AN - 873132012; 14697-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: A shoreline restoration program with a 50-year planning horizon to reduce storm-induced physical damage at Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) on Wallops Island, Virginia is proposed. WFF is a National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) facility under management of the Goddard Space Flight Center and has multiple tenants, including the Navy, Coast Guard, Mid-Atlantic Regional Spaceport (MARS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The facility is a fully capable launch range for rockets and scientific balloons, and includes a research airport. The WFF is located in the northeastern portion of Accomack County on the Delmarva Peninsula, and is comprised of the main base, Wallops mainland, and Wallops Island. Wallops Island, which is seven miles long and 2,650 feet wide, is bounded by the Chincoteague Inlet to the north, the Assawoman Inlet to the south, the Atlantic Ocean to the east, and estuaries to the west. Wallops Island has experienced shoreline changes throughout the six decades that NASA has occupied the site and the existing seawall is being undermined because there is little or no protective sand beach remaining and storm waves break directly on the rocks. Three action alternatives and a No Action Alternative are evaluated in this final EIS. Alternative 1, which is the preferred alternative, would involve initial construction to extend Wallops Island's existing rock seawall a maximum of 4,600 feet south of its southernmost point and placement of sand dredged from an offshore shoal on the Wallops Island shoreline. A total of nine follow-on renourishment cycles would occur every 5 years. The initial fill plus the total fill volume over nine renourishment events would result in approximately 10.5 million cubic yards of sand being placed on the shoreline. Under Alternative 2, the seawall extension would be the same as described for Alternative 1, but a 430-foot rock groin would be added at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternative 3 would also include the seawall extension and, in addition, a single 300-foot long breakwater would be constructed 750 feet offshore at the south end of the Wallops Island shoreline. Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in more sand being retained along the Wallops Island beach, so less fill would be required for both the initial nourishment and renourishment. However, an increase in erosion south of the structures could occur. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ensure the continued ability of NASA, the Navy, and MARS to serve the nation's rapidly growing civil, defense, academic, and commercial aerospace requirements by reducing the potential for damage to, or loss of, over $1 billion in existing assets from wave impacts associated with storm events. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Dredging in the offshore shoals and sand placement in the nearshore environment would elevate turbidity in marine waters. Approximately 1,280 acres of benthic habitat would be removed during dredging for the initial beach fill; and placement of the initial fill would bury 1.2 acres of hard-bottom intertidal habitat and 22.5 acres of subtidal benthic community along the existing seawall. Each of nine proposed beach renourishment cycles would adversely impact an additional 347 acres of benthic habitat. Disturbance and noise could affect marine mammals, loggerhead sea turtle, and piping plover. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Public Law 100-479, and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0194D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100427, Final EIS (Volume I)--459 pages, Appendices (Volume II)--1,276 pages, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Land Use KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Dredging KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Islands KW - Military Facilities (Navy) KW - Research Facilities KW - Sand KW - Section 106 Statements KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Shores KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Virginia KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Public Law 100-479, 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/873132012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.title=WALLOPS+FLIGHT+FACILITY+SHORELINE+RESTORATION+AND+INFRASTRUCTURE+PROTECTION+PROGRAM%2C+WALLOPS+ISLAND%2C+VIRGINIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Wallops Island, Virginia; NASA N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 20 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873130351; 14698-8_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130351?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 19 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873130331; 14698-8_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130331?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 18 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873130317; 14698-8_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130317?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 17 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873130278; 14698-8_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130278?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). [Part 30 of 34] T2 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 873130239; 14698-8_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130239?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT (STATE ROUTE 99) REPLACEMENT PROJECT, SEATTLE, WASHINGTON (SECOND DRAFT SUPPLEMENT TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF MARCH 2004). AN - 818791516; 14698 AB - PURPOSE: The replacement of the Alaskan Way Viaduct (State Route 99) between S. Royal Brougham Way and Roy Street in downtown Seattle, King County, Washington is proposed. Damage sustained by the viaduct during the February 2001Nisqually earthquake compromised its structural integrity. This past damage, along with the age, design, and location of the existing viaduct, makes it vulnerable to future strong earthquakes, and damage from these quakes could make the structure unusable. State Route 99 (SR 99) and Interstate 5 are the primary north-south limited access routes through downtown Seattle. Failure of the viaduct would create severe hardship for the city and the region, and could result in injury or death. The March 2004 draft EIS analyzed five build alternatives and a No Build Alternative. After further study and public input, the number of build alternatives was reduced to two, the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel and Elevated Structure alternatives, which were evaluated in the 2006 supplemental draft EIS. A new Bored Tunnel Alternative was proposed in 2009 along with complementary improvements including a restored seawall; a new waterfront surface street and connection from the waterfront to Western and Elliott Avenues; a waterfront promenade; transit enhancements; and a streetcar on First Avenue. This supplemental draft EIS analyzes the Bored Tunnel Alternative, which is the preferred alternative, and compares it to the Cut-and-Cover Tunnel, Elevated Structure, and No Build alternatives. The Bored Tunnel Alternative would replace SR 99 with a tunnel that would have two lanes in each direction. Southbound lanes would be located on the top portion of the tunnel, and the northbound lanes would be located on the bottom. Travel lanes would be 11 feet wide, with a two-foot-wide shoulder on one side and a six-foot-wide shoulder on the other side. Access to and from SR 99 would be provided via ramp connections at the south portal north of S. Royal Brougham Way and the north portal near Harrison and Republican Streets. Unlike the existing connections, ramps to and from Columbia and Seneca Streets or Elliott and Western Avenues would not be provided. This alternative would remove the viaduct along the Seattle waterfront and would close and fill the Battery Street Tunnel after the bored tunnel is constructed. The southbound on-ramp to and northbound off-ramp from SR 99 would feed directly into a reconfigured Alaskan Way South. The northbound off-ramp would have a general-purpose lane and a peak hour transit-only lane to accommodate transit coming from south or West Seattle. The reconfigured Alaskan Way South would have three lanes in each direction up to South King Street. A new trail, called the City Side Trail, would replace the existing waterfront bicycle/pedestrian facility located on the east side of Alaskan Way South. A tunnel operations building would be constructed in the block bounded by South Dearborn Street and Alaskan Way South. Full northbound and southbound access to and from SR 99 would be provided near Harrison and Republican Streets and surface streets would be rebuilt and improved in the north portal area. Costs of implementing the Bored Tunnel Alternative are estimated at $1.9 billion based on completion of tunnel and portal improvements in 2015 and surface improvements in 2017. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The aging, structurally unsound viaduct would be replaced with up-to-date facilities capable of withstanding earthquakes and offering the capacity to maintain or improve mobility, safety, and accessibility for travelers and freight interests. Implementation would protect the integrity and viability of adjacent activities on the central waterfront and in downtown Seattle. Once the viaduct is removed, views to and from the waterfront would be improved. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require: partial or full acquisition of 11 commercial properties and 52 to 59 subsurface parcels; removal of three buildings and the relocation or displacement of an estimated 144 workers; removal of 570 parking spaces; and demolition of the existing viaduct and the Battery Street tunnel, both of which are eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Traffic-generated noise levels would exceed federal standards at 48 of the 68 sites modeled for study. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft and first supplemental draft EISs, see 04-0469D, Volume 28, Number 4 and 06-0574D, Volume 30, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100428, 141 pages (Oversized), Technical Reports--CD-ROM, October 22, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-WA-EIS-04-01-DS2 KW - Demolition KW - Earthquakes KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Parking KW - Parks KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Washington KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, NPDES Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Historic Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/818791516?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-22&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.title=ALASKAN+WAY+VIADUCT+%28STATE+ROUTE+99%29+REPLACEMENT+PROJECT%2C+SEATTLE%2C+WASHINGTON+%28SECOND+DRAFT+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+DRAFT+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+MARCH+2004%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 22, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 24 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133555; 14694-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 23 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133550; 14694-4_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133550?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 22 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133546; 14694-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 21 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133542; 14694-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133542?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 20 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133539; 14694-4_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 9 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133536; 14694-4_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 8 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133531; 14694-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 7 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133527; 14694-4_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133527?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 6 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133523; 14694-4_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133523?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 5 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133520; 14694-4_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133520?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 36 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133090; 14694-4_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133090?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 35 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133080; 14694-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133080?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 33 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133069; 14694-4_0033 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 33 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133069?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 19 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133063; 14694-4_0019 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133063?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 18 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133053; 14694-4_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133053?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 17 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133048; 14694-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133048?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 12 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133038; 14694-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133038?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 11 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133024; 14694-4_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 10 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873133012; 14694-4_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133012?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 27 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132555; 14694-4_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132555?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 26 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132546; 14694-4_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132546?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 25 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132539; 14694-4_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 16 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132531; 14694-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 15 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132528; 14694-4_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132528?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 14 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132521; 14694-4_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132521?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 13 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873132519; 14694-4_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132519?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 29 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131944; 14694-4_0029 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 29 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131944?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 28 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131934; 14694-4_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131934?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 34 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131600; 14694-4_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 32 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131586; 14694-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131586?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 31 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131573; 14694-4_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131573?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 30 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131561; 14694-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131561?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 4 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131329; 14694-4_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131329?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 3 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131315; 14694-4_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 2 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131311; 14694-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131311?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 1 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131306; 14694-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131306?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. [Part 37 of 37] T2 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 873131231; 14694-4_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - RUSK PERMIT AREA, RUSK, PANOLA, AND HARRISON COUNTIES, TEXAS. AN - 16384247; 14694 AB - PURPOSE: The expansion of the existing South Hallsville No. 1 Mine, an open-pit lignite mine located in Harrison County, Texas is proposed. South Hallsville No. 1 has been in operation since 1984 and is nearing the limit on lignite reserves that can be safely and economically recovered. The proposed expansion area comprises 20,377 acres south of the existing mine and across the Sabine River into Rusk and Panola counties. The Sabine Mining Company (Sabine), a wholly owned subsidiary of North American Coal Corporation, proposes to construct, operate, and reclaim the Rusk Permit Area, including the development of 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 northern boundary of the proposed Rusk Permit Area. Infrastructure in support of the operation would include construction of a transportation corridor across the Sabine River, including a haul road, bridge, and dragline walkway. Other project components would include construction of access roads, sediment control ponds, transmission line, temporary lignite storage areas, non-lignite storage areas, a truck fueling/parking area, and wells for pit dewatering. 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 within the proposed Rusk Permit Area. SWEPCO currently owns or has leased approximately 50 percent of the Rusk Permit Area; most of the remainder is in small private ownership parcels that would be purchased or leased by SWEPCO in advance of mining. 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. In addition to the proposed action, this draft EIS considers a No Action Alternative. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would provide a long-term, reliable, continuous, 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. 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 151.2 acres of forested wetlands, 62.6 acres of non-forested wetlands, 22.1 acres of ephemeral streams, 13.5 acres of intermittent streams, 5.4 acres of perennial streams, and 48.3 acres of ponds. Construction of the proposed transportation corridor across the Sabine River would release sediments and organic matter into the river resulting in short-term temporary increases in turbidity and sedimentation downstream. Short-term, incremental loss of habitat for the state-listed bald eagle could occur. Three state-listed mussel species would be impacted by the proposed haul road bridge and dragline walkway crossings of the Sabine River. 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.). JF - EPA number: 100424, 537 pages and maps, October 19, 2010 PY - 2010 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 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/16384247?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-19&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 - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 46 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133513; 14689-9_0046 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 46 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133513?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 38 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133507; 14689-9_0038 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133507?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 37 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133499; 14689-9_0037 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 37 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133499?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 36 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133494; 14689-9_0036 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 36 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133494?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 35 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133491; 14689-9_0035 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133491?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 34 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133485; 14689-9_0034 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 34 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133485?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 28 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133473; 14689-9_0028 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 28 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133473?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 23 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133469; 14689-9_0023 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133469?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133460; 14689-9_0021 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133460?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133456; 14689-9_0020 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133456?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133447; 14689-9_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133447?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133442; 14689-9_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133442?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 11 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873133435; 14689-9_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133435?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 42 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132966; 14689-9_0042 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 42 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132966?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 41 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132957; 14689-9_0041 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 41 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132957?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 40 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132948; 14689-9_0040 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 39 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132936; 14689-9_0039 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 39 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132936?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 27 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132925; 14689-9_0027 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 27 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 26 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132914; 14689-9_0026 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 26 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132914?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 25 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132904; 14689-9_0025 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 25 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132904?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 45 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132481; 14689-9_0045 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 45 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132481?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 44 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132472; 14689-9_0044 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 44 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 43 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132468; 14689-9_0043 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 43 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132468?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 32 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132449; 14689-9_0032 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132449?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 31 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132441; 14689-9_0031 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 31 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132441?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132431; 14689-9_0018 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132431?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132424; 14689-9_0017 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132419; 14689-9_0016 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132419?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 15 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132409; 14689-9_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132409?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 30 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131925; 14689-9_0030 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131925?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131919; 14689-9_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131919?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131915; 14689-9_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131910; 14689-9_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131910?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131895; 14689-9_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131895?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 48 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131539; 14689-9_0048 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 48 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131539?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 47 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873131531; 14689-9_0047 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 47 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131531?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130425; 14689-9_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130425?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130414; 14689-9_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130414?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130052; 14689-9_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130052?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873130033; 14689-9_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 48] T2 - AMERICAN RIVER WATERSHED COMMON FEATURES PROJECT, NATOMAS POST-AUTHORIZATION CHANGE REPORT, NATOMAS LEVEE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, PHASE 4B LANDSIDE IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT, SACRAMENTO AND SUTTER COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873129749; 14689-9_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The Natomas Levee Improvement Program (NLIP), Phase 4b Landside Improvements Project, consisting of improvements to a portion of the Natomas Basin's perimeter levee system in Sacramento and Sutter counties, California, is proposed. The Natomas Basin is located at the confluence of the American and Sacramento Rivers and encompasses 53,000 acres. In addition to the American and Sacramento Rivers to the south and west, the Natomas Basin is bordered to the north by the Natomas Cross Canal (NCC) and to the east by the Pleasant Grove Creek Canal (PGCC) and the Natomas East Main Drainage Canal (NEMDC). The improvements and associated landscape and irrigation/drainage infrastructure modifications are proposed in order to provide 100-year flood protection and to bring the entire 42-mile Natomas Basin perimeter levee system into compliance with federal and state standards for levees protecting urban areas. Phase 4b is the final subphase of the Landside Improvements Project. The NLIP implements features from several prior authorizations of the American Rivers Common Features Project, which was the subject of an interim general reevaluation study that specifically identified changes to the Natomas portion of the authorized project. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS. Under the Adjacent Levee Alternative, which is the proposed action, a levee would be constructed along the Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620, and cutoff walls, seepage berms, and relief wells would be installed for seepage remediation. A cutoff wall would be installed in the American River north levee east of Gateway Oaks Drive to Northgate Boulevard, and the landside slope would be flattened. The NEMDC west levee would be raised in place or widened from just south of Elkhorn Boulevard to Sankey Road, and the landside slope would be flattened and seepage remediation would be constructed as necessary. Waterside erosion protection would be constructed in locations along the PGCC and NEMDC. Culverts located beneath the PGCC would be upgraded or removed, and replacement flood storage would be provided. At the SR 99 crossing of the NCC, seepage remediation would be installed and a moveable barrier system would be constructed to prevent overflow from reaching the landside of the NCC south levee. The western portion of the West Drainage Canal would be realigned to the south, and the remaining portion of the existing canal would be improved to reduce bank erosion and sloughing, decrease aquatic weed infiltration, improve maintenance access, and enhance giant garter snake habitat connectivity. Irrigation canals and ditches would be relocated either to make room for expanded levee sections or to reduce underseepage potential. Discharge pipes would be raised to cross the levee above design flood water surface elevation. Parcels in the South Fishermans Lake and Triangle Properties borrow areas and at the West Lakeside School site would be excavated and reclaimed as agricultural land. Under the Fix-in-Place Alternative, the Sacramento River east levee would be improved in place in Sacramento River east levee Reach A:1620 and seepage remediation would be implemented. The Fix-in-Place Alternative would be the same as described for the Adjacent Levee Alternative except that the crown of the Sacramento River east levee would not be widened. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Protecting the Natomas Basin floodplain, which is occupied by 83,000 residents, would help the area avoid $7.4 billion in potential damage from uncontrolled flooding, as well as the release of toxic and hazardous materials, contamination of groundwater, and damage to the metropolitan power and transport grids. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction would contribute to air pollutant emissions, permanently convert large acreages of prime farmland, permanently encroach on recreational facilities, lead to potential loss of mineral resources and woodland habitats, and impact Swainson's hawk and other protected species of birds. Implementation would require 25 property acquisitions. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601), and River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100419, Main Post-Authorization Change Report--222 pages and maps, Volume 1--373 pages and maps, Volume 2--543 pages, Appendices--CD-ROM, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Airports KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Canals KW - Dikes KW - Drainage KW - Erosion Control KW - Farmlands KW - Flood Control KW - Flood Protection KW - Floodplains KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Irrigation KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Noise Assessments KW - Reclamation Plans KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality KW - Wells KW - American River KW - California KW - Sacramento 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 KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 14 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129749?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=AMERICAN+RIVER+WATERSHED+COMMON+FEATURES+PROJECT%2C+NATOMAS+POST-AUTHORIZATION+CHANGE+REPORT%2C+NATOMAS+LEVEE+IMPROVEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHASE+4B+LANDSIDE+IMPROVEMENTS+PROJECT%2C+SACRAMENTO+AND+SUTTER+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868224365; 14691-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224365?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868224217; 14691-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224217?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868224211; 14692-2_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868224203; 14692-2_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868224193; 14692-2_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224193?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223974; 14691-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223974?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223970; 14691-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223970?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223965; 14691-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223965?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - SUNRIDGE PROPERTIES PROJECT, CITY OF RANCHO CORDOVA, SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 868223961; 14691-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The environmental impacts of six residential development projects located in the city of Rancho Cordova in southeastern Sacramento County, California are reevaluated. The six projects are collectively referred to as the Sunridge Properties and are located in the Sunridge Specific Plan Area, which was master-planned for a total of nine residential developments. Between 2004 and 2007, applicants submitted permit applications to fill waters of the United States, including wetlands, and the Army Corps of Engineers issued permits for eight of the nine developments. Three of the nine properties are in the process of being developed. Subsequent litigation challenged the issuance of the permits and a stay is in place, which precludes further development at the six project sites while impacts are reevaluated. The projects under evaluation are Anatolia IV, Sunridge Village J, Grantline 208, Douglas Road 98, and Douglas Road 103. A permit decision has not been rendered for the sixth project, Arista del Sol. This final EIS considers three alternatives: No Action with no permit needed, the proposed project, and a reduced footprint project. The proposed project alternative would consist of constructing 3,258 single family homes and developing 45 acres of neighborhood parks, 28.5 acres of road improvements, 19.2 acres of drainage basins, 21.2 acres of commercial space. and 153.6 acres of onsite wetland preserve. Mitigation would include creation of 34 acres and preservation of 53 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. Under the proposed alternative, the six projects would collectively require the filling of 29.9 acres of waters of the United States, including wetlands. The reduced footprint alternative would seek to protect the headwaters of Laguna and Morrison creeks and would consist of developing 456 acres as residential space, parks, road improvements, drainage basins, and commercial space. This alternative would result in the filling of 20.3 acres of waters of the United States and would include creation of 20.4 acres and preservation of 40.8 acres of vernal pool habitat off-site. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the proposed action would help meet a portion of the identified housing needs in Sacramento County which has been undergoing continuous growth. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would result in the loss of 23 acres of vernal pool habitat and substantial loss to populations of vernal pool plant and animal species, including special-status vernal pool crustaceans. Indirect effects would occur through the loss or alteration of upland habitat areas. Short-term effects could include increased sediment, pollutants, and nutrients to wetlands downstream, and long-term effects could include introduction of invasive plants, feral cats and other non-native predators to sensitive species, and introduction of hazardous and non-hazardous waste and materials. Increased water demands could result in increased groundwater pumping and increased demand for new surface water supplies. Construction of the Sunridge Properties would have cumulatively considerable impacts on air quality, new traffic noise, and traffic congestion. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). JF - EPA number: 100421, Final EIS--470 pages and maps, Appendices--973 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Urban and Social Programs KW - Air Quality KW - Creeks KW - Drainage KW - Emissions KW - Housing KW - Parks KW - Roads KW - Transportation KW - Urban Development KW - Vegetation KW - Water Supply KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - California KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%2C+SACRAMENTO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=SUNRIDGE+PROPERTIES+PROJECT%2C+CITY+OF+RANCHO+CORDOVA%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, Sacramento, California; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868223956; 14692-2_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223956?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868223951; 14692-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223951?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 868223943; 14692-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868223943?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SOUTH CORRIDOR: PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE LIGHT RAIL PROJECT, CLACKAMAS AND MULTNOMAH COUNTIES, OREGON. AN - 815276472; 14692 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a 7.3-mile light rail transit (LRT) extension to connect downtown Portland, the City of Milwaukie, and north Clackamas County, Oregon is proposed. The Portland-Milwaukie light rail project is part of the two-phase South Corridor project, which in turn is part of the larger South/North Corridor extending from Clackamas County to downtown Portland and north to the Columbia River and Vancouver, Washington. The South/North Corridor Project draft EIS was released in February 1998 and a supplemental draft EIS was prepared in May 2008 to address the Portland-Milwaukie Corridor. The supplement also considered findings from the South Corridor supplemental draft EIS of December 2002. The Portland-Milwaukie Corridor includes the city of Milwaukie and much of southeast Portland and the Portland Central City, including the Central Business District, the South Waterfront District, and the Central Eastside Industrial District, all highly concentrated urban zones. This final EIS considers a No-Build Alternative, the locally preferred LRT alternative, and related options and facilities. The proposed alternative would provide for a mostly double-tracked light rail between downtown Portland and Milwaukie, generally paralleling Southeast McLoughlin Boulevard to the east and terminating at Southeast Park Avenue. The system would include 10 LRT stations plus a previously deferred Southwest Jackson station and a future Southeast Harold Station to be developed when land uses and ridership support its development. A new Willamette River bridge would accommodate light rail, buses, bicycles, pedestrians, and a future streetcar. The 1,720-foot long bridge would be a two-tower cable-stayed structure. Bus network adjustments would include elimination and modification of bus routes that would duplicate LRT service and adjustment of routes to connect at LRT stations or transit centers. Two park-and-ride facilities, providing up to 1,400 spaces, would be integrated into the system. Streetcar alignments would be shifted to accommodate LRT along Southwest River Drive. The Ruby Junction Operations and Maintenance Facility would be expanded to accommodate 17 to 20 additional LRT vehicles. The Minimum Operable Segment (MOS) would have one fewer station, with its initial terminus in Milwaukie at Southeast Lake Road. The MOS would allow phased development if there is insufficient funding for the full alignment. Estimated cost of full implementation of the LRT project in year of expenditure dollars is $1.55 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The project would provide high-quality transit service along a major metropolitan transportation corridor, accommodate future population and economic growth patterns in the area, reduce vehicle miles travelled by as much as 70,000 miles daily, reduce traffic infiltration through neighborhoods, and improve regional air quality. The project would result in up to 14,500 additional person-year jobs and up to $573 million more in additional personal income. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Right-of-way requirements would result in the displacement of 77 to 95 full properties, one to 11 residences, and 52 to 58 businesses. Construction would affect three historic sites, 22 to 26 acres characterized by a high probability for archaeological resources, and up to four existing and two planned parks. The project would impact one acre of wetlands and 7.6 acres of floodplains, increase impervious surface in the area by approximately 20 acres, and displace 16.2 acres of vegetation. Impacts to streams would include those resulting from relocation of 222 linear feet of stream providing habitat to federally protected fish species. 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.), National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 470 et seq.), and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS on the overall South/North Corridor Project, see 98-0040D, Volume 22, Number 1. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the South Corridor Project, see 03-0207D, Volume 27, Number 2. For the abstract of the supplemental draft EIS for the Portland-Milwaukie Light Rail Project, see 08-0326D, Volume 32, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100422, Volume 1--580 pages, Volume 2--439 pages, Public Comments and Responses (Appendix P)--765 pages, October 15, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Air Quality KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Central Business Districts KW - Creeks KW - Employment KW - Endangered Species (Plants) KW - Fish KW - Highway Structures KW - Historic Sites KW - Industrial Districts KW - Parking KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Oregon KW - Willamette River KW - Department of Transportation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Federal Transit Law, Funding KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Compliance KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/815276472?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-15&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.title=SOUTH+CORRIDOR%3A+PORTLAND-MILWAUKIE+LIGHT+RAIL+PROJECT%2C+CLACKAMAS+AND+MULTNOMAH+COUNTIES%2C+OREGON.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Seattle, Washington; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 15, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 14 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132894; 14678-7_0014 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 11 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132888; 14678-7_0011 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132888?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 10 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132876; 14678-7_0010 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132876?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 15 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132315; 14678-7_0015 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132315?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 13 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132105; 14678-7_0013 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132105?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 12 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873132099; 14678-7_0012 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132099?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 9 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131724; 14678-7_0009 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131724?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 8 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131719; 14678-7_0008 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131719?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 7 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873131710; 14678-7_0007 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 6 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130293; 14678-7_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 5 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130280; 14678-7_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130280?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 1 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873130130; 14678-7_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130130?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 4 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129906; 14678-7_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129906?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 3 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129424; 14678-7_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. [Part 2 of 15] T2 - AMARGOSA FARM ROAD SOLAR ENERGY PROJECT, NYE COUNTY, NEVADA. AN - 873129413; 14678-7_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction and operation of two concentrated solar thermal power plant facilities on public lands approximately 80 miles northwest of Las Vegas in Amargosa Valley, Nye County, Nevada are proposed. Solar Millennium, a wholly owned subsidiary of Solar Trust of America, has applied for a right-of-way grant for 6,320 acres of lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) to build the Amargosa Farm Road Solar Energy Project. Facilities would consist of two 232-megawatt (MW) dry-cooled solar power plants equipped with thermal energy storage capability and associated ancillary linear facilities. Some portions of the proposed project would be located on private property, including a 40-acre parcel south of Amargosa Farm Road, and the wells which would be used to supply water to the proposed project. Facilities located within the project area would occupy approximately 4,350 acres and would include parabolic trough solar fields, conventional steam Rankine-cycle power blocks, a heat transfer fluid and steam generation system, a nitrate salt thermal energy storage system, an office and maintenance building, parking area, lay-down area, switchyard, and a stormwater detention basin. The electric output of the plant would be provided entirely by solar energy and the proposed point of interconnection would be a new switchyard constructed by Valley Electric Association near Amargosa Farm Road and Power Line Road. The proposed project would be built in two phases over a total of 39 months. In addition to the proposed action, this final EIS analyzes a No Action Alternative and a wet-cooled technology alternative. Under the wet-cooled alternative, two 242-MW power plants would be constructed and construction and operation would be similar to the proposed dry-cooled plant except for the amount of water required for plant operations. In addition to water requirements for solar collector mirror washing, makeup for the solar steam generator feedwater, dust control, potable water, and fire control, the wet-cooled plant would require water for a cooling tower to cool the steam cycle. While the wet-cooling alternative would have performance advantages of 11 MW greater electrical output during peak summer conditions, it would have water requirements of 4,600 acre-feet per year. The dry-cooled plant demand for operational water would be 400 acre-feet per year. Construction is expected to begin in 2011. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed project would support the economy of southern Nevada by helping to ensure an adequate supply of renewable electrical energy while creating additional tax revenues, employment, and expenditures in local businesses. Operation of a reliable solar power generation facility capable of contributing approximately one million MW hours per year would advance progress toward Nevada's renewable energy goals. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of the proposed project would clear 4,350 acres of creosote bush-dominated native vegetation, create potential for non-native weed invasion, and directly impact at least 12 snake and lizard species including the desert iguana and the shovel-nosed snake. Suitable nesting habitat for LeConte's thrasher would be eliminated. The evaporation ponds included in the wet-cooled alternative would create potential threats to resident or migratory birds. Seismic activity and ground subsidence could impact structures. Sixteen cultural resource sites within the area could be affected. Visual impacts would alter the rural to natural setting. LEGAL MANDATES: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (P.L. 111-5), Energy Policy Act of 1995 (P.L. 109-58), and Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1701 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0024D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100407, Final EIS (Volume I)--428 pages and maps, Appendices (Volume II)--149 pages and maps, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Air Transportation KW - Agency number: BLM/NV/PA/ES-10/16+1793 KW - Birds KW - Electric Power KW - Energy Storage KW - Power Plants KW - Solar Energy KW - Steam Generators KW - Turbines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Wells KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Nevada KW - American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Funding KW - Energy Policy Act of 1995, Funding KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129413?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%2C+NEVADA.&rft.title=AMARGOSA+FARM+ROAD+SOLAR+ENERGY+PROJECT%2C+NYE+COUNTY%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, Las Vegas, Nevada; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 8 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224191; 14677-6_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 7 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224178; 14677-6_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224178?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 6 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224171; 14677-6_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224171?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 5 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224161; 14677-6_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224161?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 4 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224153; 14677-6_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224153?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 3 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224142; 14677-6_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224142?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 2 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224137; 14677-6_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224137?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). [Part 1 of 8] T2 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 868224129; 14677-6_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224129?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CALCASIEU RIVER AND PASS DREDGED MATERIAL MANAGEMENT PLAN, CALCASIEU AND CAMERON PARISHES, LOUISIANA (FINAL SUPPLEMENT TO THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT OF 1976). AN - 808457808; 14677 AB - PURPOSE: Implementation of a plan for the management and disposal of dredged material from the routine maintenance of the Calcasieu River and Pass (Calcasieu Ship Channel), Calcasieu and Cameron parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The project area is bounded on the north by Interstate 10 and on the south by the Gulf of Mexico; it reaches from channel mile 36 in Lake Charles, Louisiana south to mile 32 of the Bar (Entrance) Channel in the Gulf of Mexico. The project area extends into the coastal marshes west of the ship channel and into Calcasieu Lake east of the channel and includes portions of Lake Charles, Prien Lake, Moss Lake, Browns Lake, Black Lake, and Calcasieu Lake. The tonnage of commodities handled at the Calcasieu Ship Channels docks makes the Lake Charles Harbor and Terminal District (Port of Lake Charles) the 11th largest seaport in the U.S. and the second largest strategic petroleum reserve facility. Currently, the project does not have the adequate dredged material disposal capacity needed to maintain the channel to authorized depths. The gross 20-year dredging capacity required to maintain the channel is 97 million cubic yards, while the existing confined disposal capacity is only five million cubic yards. Existing discharge sites are at or near capacity, and past maintenance deficiencies have resulted in substantial erosion of discharge facilities into adjacent water bodies. Without action, navigation on the channel may be restricted as a result of reduced channel depths. Four alternative plans, with various combinations of dredged material management and disposal options, were developed and evaluated. Alternative D, which proposed disposal of material from the channel at the ocean dredged material disposal site, was eliminated from further consideration. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative (Alternative A), are examined in detail in this supplemental final EIS. Alternatives B and C would involve placement of dredged material in confined disposal facilities (CDFs) and beneficial use sites. These two plans differ between channel miles 12 and 22 in that Alternative B would maximize the use of confined disposal of material, while Alternative C would maximize the use of dredged material for wetland nourishment. Alternative B would create 5,840 acres of marsh and 1,183 average annual habitat units (AAHUs), while Alternative C would create 10,030 acres of marsh and 2,035 AAHUs. Alternative B, with a total 20-year estimated cost of $788.8 million inclusive of associated investigation, environmental, engineering and design, construction, and supervision, is the recommended plan. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of Alternative B would provide enough disposal capacity for the maintenance of the navigation channel to authorized dimensions for 20 years. The plan would optimize beneficial use by designating approximately 30 percent of material dredged between channel miles 5 and 36 for the creation and nourishment of marsh and estuarine habitat. Alternative B is the lowest-cost alternative that meets Federal environmental requirements and is consistent with sound engineering practices. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Expanding existing CDFs and placing dredged material for beneficial use could result in short-term elevated levels of suspended solids and nutrients and would result in the loss of 511 acres of wetland and open water habitat, including 443 acres of open water habitat in Calcasieu Lake. Thirteen acres of lake bottom impacted by CDF expansions and marsh creation are potentially productive oyster grounds. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1946 (P.L.79-525) and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). JF - EPA number: 100406, Final Supplemental EIS--364 pages and maps, Volume II--Appendices A-G, Volume III--Appendices H-U, October 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Water KW - Channels KW - Cost Assessments KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Geologic Surveys KW - Hydrologic Assessments KW - Lakes KW - Navigation KW - Rivers KW - Shellfish KW - Water Quality KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Calcasieu Lake KW - Calcasieu River KW - Louisiana KW - River and Harbor Act of 1946, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/808457808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.title=CALCASIEU+RIVER+AND+PASS+DREDGED+MATERIAL+MANAGEMENT+PLAN%2C+CALCASIEU+AND+CAMERON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA+%28FINAL+SUPPLEMENT+TO+THE+FINAL+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT+OF+1976%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Quail Genomics: a knowledgebase for Northern bobwhite AN - 954625495; 14323780 AB - The Quail Genomics knowledgebase (http://www.quailgenomics.info) has been initiated to share and develop functional genomic data for Northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). This web-based platform has been designed to allow researchers to perform analysis and curate genomic information for this non-model species that has little supporting information in GenBank. A multi-tissue, normalized cDNA library generated for Northern bobwhite was sequenced using 454 Life Sciences next generation sequencing. The Quail Genomics knowledgebase represents the 478,142 raw ESTs generated from the sequencing effort in addition to assembled nucleotide and protein sequences including 21,980 unigenes annotated with meta-data. A normalized MySQL relational database was established to provide comprehensive search parameters where meta-data can be retrieved using functional and structural information annotation such as gene name, pathways and protein domain. Additionally, blast hit cutoff levels and microarray expression data are available for batch searches. A Gene Ontology (GO) browser from Amigo is locally hosted providing 8,825 unigenes that are putative orthologs to chicken genes. In an effort to address over abundance of Northern bobwhite unigenes (71,384) caused by non-overlapping contigs and singletons, we have built a pipeline that generates scaffolds/supercontigs by aligning partial sequence fragments against the indexed protein database of chicken to build longer sequences that can be visualized in a web browser. Our effort provides a central repository for storage and a platform for functional interrogation of the Northern bobwhite sequences providing comprehensive GO annotations, meta-data and a scaffold building pipeline. The Quail Genomics knowledgebase will be integrated with Japanese quail (Coturnix coturnix) data in future builds and incorporate a broader platform for these avian species. JF - BMC Bioinformatics AU - Rawat, Arun AU - Gust, Kurt A AU - Elasri, Mohamed O AU - Perkins, Edward J AD - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory, EP-P, Vicksburg, MS, USA Y1 - 2010/10/07/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Oct 07 SP - S13 PB - BioMed Central Ltd., Middlesex House London W1T 4LB UK VL - 11 IS - 6 KW - Genetics Abstracts; Biotechnology and Bioengineering Abstracts KW - Colinus virginianus KW - Coturnix coturnix KW - Data processing KW - Nucleotide sequence KW - expressed sequence tags KW - scaffolds KW - Databases KW - Structure-function relationships KW - genomics KW - Bioinformatics KW - Coturnix japonica KW - double prime A gene KW - G 07860:Birds KW - W 30960:Bioinformatics & Computer Applications UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/954625495?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Abiotechresearch&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=BMC+Bioinformatics&rft.atitle=Quail+Genomics%3A+a+knowledgebase+for+Northern+bobwhite&rft.au=Rawat%2C+Arun%3BGust%2C+Kurt+A%3BElasri%2C+Mohamed+O%3BPerkins%2C+Edward+J&rft.aulast=Rawat&rft.aufirst=Arun&rft.date=2010-10-07&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=6&rft.spage=S13&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=BMC+Bioinformatics&rft.issn=1471-2105&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2F1471-2105-11-S6-S13 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2012-03-01 N1 - Last updated - 2012-03-30 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Databases; Data processing; Structure-function relationships; Nucleotide sequence; Bioinformatics; genomics; expressed sequence tags; double prime A gene; scaffolds; Colinus virginianus; Coturnix coturnix; Coturnix japonica DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2105-11-S6-S13 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NC-109 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD (NC-1798) TO I-40/US 311, DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - NC-109 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD (NC-1798) TO I-40/US 311, DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 868224125; 14665-4_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the NC 109 corridor within the Piedmont region south of Winston-Salem in Davidson and Forsyth counties, North Carolina are proposed. NC 109 is the only direct route between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and functions as a north-south connector between Interstate 85 (I-85), I-85 Business, and I-40/US 311. Existing levels of service on some two-lane segments of NC 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) and I-40/US 311 were unacceptable in 2008 and a total of 219 accidents were recorded along this section of roadway between February 2006 and January 2009. Traffic volumes are projected to increase by approximately 90 percent from 2008 to 2035. A No Build Alternative, several build alternatives, and one upgrade existing facility alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. The new facility would be a four-lane median divided roadway with partial control of access, a design speed of 60 miles per hour (mph) and a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would be used at major intersections and no signalized intersections are proposed. Driveway accesses along NC 109 would be right in, right out only. Left turns would be accomplished by making a U-turn at a median opening approximately one quarter mile from the intersection. Alternative 1 would upgrade the existing roadway and would be 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative 3 would extend 9.5 miles with 7.75 miles on new location and would include six directional crossovers. Under Alternative 4, the roadway would extend 9.3 miles with 8.5 miles on new location and would include seven crossover intersections. Alternative 5 would extend 8.6 miles with 7.4 miles on new location and also would include seven crossovers. Alternative 6 is the longest at 10.1 miles and 8.7 miles on new location. Five crossover intersections would be included. Preliminary total cost estimates, including construction, right-of-way, and utility costs range from $119.0 million for Alternative 5, to $144.7 million for Alternative 1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve traffic flow and service, improve safety, and reduce conflicts between through traffic and local traffic in the project area. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would provide a safer facility by reducing the number of conflict points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New location development would further fragment wildlife habitat. Total direct wetland impacts would range from 0.14 acre to 0.58 acre. Stream crossings would range from 20 to 34, and stream impacts from 4,432 linear feet to 10,729 linear feet. All 5 build alternatives would cross the 100-year floodplains associated with Abbotts Creek and Brushey Fork. There could be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in displacements along the western edge of the Meadowlands community. Alternatives 4 and 5 would impact three neighborhoods along Gumtree Road west of Friendship-Ledford Road: Cedar Estates, Holly Acres, and Briers Creek. All five alternatives would impact power transmission line towers. Alternatives 1 , 3, and 6 could have minor visual and/or noise impacts on three historic properties: George W. Wall House, D. Austin Parker House, and Mark Parker House. All of the alternatives would introduce a visual intrusion into the largely rural landscape. Alternative 1 would result in highest number of total impacted noise receptors at 97, while Alternative 5 would result in the lowest number at 31 impacted noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100394, 246 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224125?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NC-109 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD (NC-1798) TO I-40/US 311, DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - NC-109 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD (NC-1798) TO I-40/US 311, DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 868224118; 14665-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the NC 109 corridor within the Piedmont region south of Winston-Salem in Davidson and Forsyth counties, North Carolina are proposed. NC 109 is the only direct route between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and functions as a north-south connector between Interstate 85 (I-85), I-85 Business, and I-40/US 311. Existing levels of service on some two-lane segments of NC 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) and I-40/US 311 were unacceptable in 2008 and a total of 219 accidents were recorded along this section of roadway between February 2006 and January 2009. Traffic volumes are projected to increase by approximately 90 percent from 2008 to 2035. A No Build Alternative, several build alternatives, and one upgrade existing facility alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. The new facility would be a four-lane median divided roadway with partial control of access, a design speed of 60 miles per hour (mph) and a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would be used at major intersections and no signalized intersections are proposed. Driveway accesses along NC 109 would be right in, right out only. Left turns would be accomplished by making a U-turn at a median opening approximately one quarter mile from the intersection. Alternative 1 would upgrade the existing roadway and would be 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative 3 would extend 9.5 miles with 7.75 miles on new location and would include six directional crossovers. Under Alternative 4, the roadway would extend 9.3 miles with 8.5 miles on new location and would include seven crossover intersections. Alternative 5 would extend 8.6 miles with 7.4 miles on new location and also would include seven crossovers. Alternative 6 is the longest at 10.1 miles and 8.7 miles on new location. Five crossover intersections would be included. Preliminary total cost estimates, including construction, right-of-way, and utility costs range from $119.0 million for Alternative 5, to $144.7 million for Alternative 1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve traffic flow and service, improve safety, and reduce conflicts between through traffic and local traffic in the project area. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would provide a safer facility by reducing the number of conflict points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New location development would further fragment wildlife habitat. Total direct wetland impacts would range from 0.14 acre to 0.58 acre. Stream crossings would range from 20 to 34, and stream impacts from 4,432 linear feet to 10,729 linear feet. All 5 build alternatives would cross the 100-year floodplains associated with Abbotts Creek and Brushey Fork. There could be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in displacements along the western edge of the Meadowlands community. Alternatives 4 and 5 would impact three neighborhoods along Gumtree Road west of Friendship-Ledford Road: Cedar Estates, Holly Acres, and Briers Creek. All five alternatives would impact power transmission line towers. Alternatives 1 , 3, and 6 could have minor visual and/or noise impacts on three historic properties: George W. Wall House, D. Austin Parker House, and Mark Parker House. All of the alternatives would introduce a visual intrusion into the largely rural landscape. Alternative 1 would result in highest number of total impacted noise receptors at 97, while Alternative 5 would result in the lowest number at 31 impacted noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100394, 246 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/868224118?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 5] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853676438; 14668-100397_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River; and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would add a 3,000-cubic-foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to six control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the recommended plan would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0217D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100397, Final EIS--566 pages, Appendices--872 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676438?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 7 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853676427; 14666-100395_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676427?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853676424; 14666-100395_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676424?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853676417; 14666-100395_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676417?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853676408; 14667-100396_0004 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676408?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675789; 14666-100395_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675789?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 8 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675638; 14666-100395_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675638?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675634; 14666-100395_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675634?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 5] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675630; 14668-100397_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River; and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would add a 3,000-cubic-foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to six control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the recommended plan would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0217D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100397, Final EIS--566 pages, Appendices--872 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675630?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 3] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675628; 14670-100399_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 33 is the recommended plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $8.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and placement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0218D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100399, Final EIS--438 pages, Appendices--647 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675628?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 3] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675621; 14670-100399_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 33 is the recommended plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $8.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and placement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0218D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100399, Final EIS--438 pages, Appendices--647 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675621?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675614; 14666-100395_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675614?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 3] T2 - AMITE RIVER DIVERSION CANAL MODIFICATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ASCENSION AND LIVINGSTON PARISHES, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675607; 14670-100399_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Modification of the Amite River Diversion Canal (ARDC) to establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp, Ascension and Livingston parishes, Louisiana is proposed. The ARDC was constructed in the 1950s to relieve flooding along the upper Amite River and to enhance the flow of water from the meandering Amite River to Lake Maurepas. The 10-mile long canal is 350 feet wide and was dug to a depth of 25 feet. The natural hydrology in the study area has been modified by the ARDC and a railroad grade. The proposed project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA ARDC Modification study area is located approximately 28 miles southeast of the City of Baton Rouge and west of Lake Maurepas and is mostly undeveloped. ARDC is located north of the Small Diversion at Blind River and flows through the western portion of Maurepas Swamp. Cypress-tupelo forests make up the majority of the area. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 33 is the recommended plan and would include three dredged material bank openings and three bifurcated conveyance channels in the north bank of the ARDC. Dredged material (five acres) from the bank openings and the conveyance channel would be sidecast in alternating berms so sheet flow is not reduced. One cut would be created in the railroad grade approximately 0.9 of a mile north of the ARDC to improve sheet flow. Vegetative plantings would include bottomland hardwood/freshwater swamp tree species on five acres of dredged material berms and freshwater swamp tree species within 438 acres of the swamp floor. Nutria guards would be installed on all newly planted trees to protect against tree loss. The fully funded project cost is estimated at $8.5 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommended plan would: restore and benefit 1,602 acres of freshwater swamp habitat; create a net of 679 average annual habitat units; create five acres of bottomland hardwood habitat; establish hydrologic connectivity between the ARDC and the western Maurepas Swamp; reduce the likelihood of the swamp being converted to marsh or open water, promoting the germination and survival of the seedlings of bald cypress and other trees; and improve biological productivity and reduce further habitat deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Direct impacts to water quality and benthic resources would result from construction associated with removal of the existing dredged material berm, dredging of new conveyance channels, and placement of dredged material to create bottomland hardwood islands. Precautions would need to be taken with regard to the Gulf sturgeon and the West Indian manatee, both threatened species that are known to occur in the study area. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0218D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100399, Final EIS--438 pages, Appendices--647 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Sediment KW - Vegetation KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Amite River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675607?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=AMITE+RIVER+DIVERSION+CANAL+MODIFICATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ASCENSION+AND+LIVINGSTON+PARISHES%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 4 of 5] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675600; 14668-100397_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River; and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would add a 3,000-cubic-foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to six control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the recommended plan would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0217D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100397, Final EIS--566 pages, Appendices--872 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 5] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675598; 14668-100397_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River; and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would add a 3,000-cubic-foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to six control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the recommended plan would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0217D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100397, Final EIS--566 pages, Appendices--872 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 3 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675590; 14667-100396_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675590?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 5] T2 - SMALL DIVERSION AT CONVENT/BLIND RIVER, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), ST. JAMES PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675588; 14668-100397_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a small freshwater hydraulic diversion project from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp via the Blind River in the vicinity of Convent, St. James Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one of six elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The LCA Convent / Blind River Diversion project area is located halfway between New Orleans and Baton Rouge between the Mississippi River and Lake Maurepas. Convent is a small, unincorporated community along the Mississippi River located south of Romeville. The Maurepas Swamp is one of the largest remaining tracts of coastal freshwater swamps in Louisiana and serves as a buffer between the open water areas of Lakes Maurepas and Pontchartrain and developed areas along the Interstate 10/Airline Highway corridor near the New Orleans metropolitan area. The Blind River flows from St. James Parish, through Ascension Parish and St. John the Baptist Parish, and then discharges into Lake Maurepas. The Mississippi River levee system has cut off the Maurepas Swamp and Blind River from natural periodic, flooding by the Mississippi River; and past construction of logging trails, drainage channels, pipelines and roads through the swamp has disrupted the natural flow and drainage patterns, and impacted the biological productivity of the swamp. Without action, the swamp is predicted to continue to deteriorate, with approximately 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp projected to become marsh or open water over the 50-year period of analysis. A No Action Alternative and four action alternatives are examined in detail in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would add a 3,000-cubic-foot per second diversion near Romeville including a gated culvert system and transfer canal, restoration and improvement of 160 existing berm cuts, the addition of 30 new 500-foot wide berm cuts, construction of up to six control structures at strategic locations in the swamp, and the addition of three new culverts under U.S. 61. It would improve and protect 21,369 acres of bald cypress-tupelo swamp and have a net value of 6,421 average annual habitat units over the 50-year period of analysis. The total estimated cost of the recommended plan is $123.1 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The diversion would simulate annual spring flooding and provide additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment from the Mississippi River into Maurepas Swamp and its surrounding areas to improve biological productivity, facilitate accretion in the swamp, and prevent further swamp deterioration. Reversing this decline would aid development of a more sustainable wetland ecosystem and could also provide some measure of flood damage protection by lowering storm surge and wave heights. The four action alternatives would provide significant fish and wildlife habitat enhancement in the study area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would result in short-term, temporary, construction-related impacts within the project area including interference with local traffic, minor limited air emissions, increases in ambient noise levels, dust generation, disturbance of wildlife, increased storm runoff, and disturbance of recreational and other public facilities. Construction of the Romeville diversion canal under the recommended plan would impact 53 acres of forested wetlands which are not part of Maurepas Swamp and 106.9 acres of prime and unique farmland would be lost due to the construction of the Romeville transmission pathway. The acquisition of approximately 175 acres of land in fee for the transmission channel and related improvements would be required. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-114). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0217D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100397, Final EIS--566 pages, Appendices--872 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Farmlands KW - Fish KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Blind River KW - Louisiana KW - Maurepas Swamp KW - Mississippi River KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675588?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=SMALL+DIVERSION+AT+CONVENT%2FBLIND+RIVER%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+ST.+JAMES+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675583; 14667-100396_0006 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675583?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 5 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675582; 14667-100396_0005 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675582?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 1 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675581; 14667-100396_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675581?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 6 of 8] T2 - CONVEY ATCHAFALAYA RIVER WATER TO NORTHERN TERREBONNE MARSHES AND MULTIPURPOSE OPERATION OF HOUMA NAVIGATION LOCK, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), LAFOURCHE, TERREBONNE, ST. MARY PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675537; 14666-100395_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Restoration projects to increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central and eastern Terrebonne marshes via the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway (GIWW), Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana are proposed. The Convey Atchafalaya River Water to Northern Terrebonne Marshes (ARTM) / Multipurpose Operation of the Houma Navigation Lock (MOHNL) study area is located east of Morgan City, south of Houma, and south of LaRose. These two projects are elements of a Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The projects were determined to be hydrologically intertwined and were consequently combined for analysis. The study area is located at the northern edge of the Gulf of Mexico, encompasses approximately 700,000 acres, and contains a complex of habitat types, including natural levees, lakes, swamps, marshes, and bayous formed from sediments of abandoned Mississippi River deltas. The hydrology of the area has been altered by the Atchafalaya Basin Floodway, the GIWW, the Atchafalaya River, Bayou Chene, Bayou Boeuf, Black Navigation Channel, Houma Navigation Canal, and Houma area levees and pump systems, drainage canals, and access canals. The natural processes of subsidence, habitat switching, and erosion, combined with human activities, have caused significant adverse impacts to the Northern Terrebonne marshes, including accelerated wetland loss and ecosystem degradation which will continue unless preventative measures are taken. Eight alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 2, which is the recommended plan, would consist of 57 features that would increase existing Atchafalaya River influence to central (Lake Boudreaux) and eastern (Grand Bayou) Terrebonne marshes via the GIWW by introducing flow into the Lake Boudreaux and Grand Bayou Basins. This would be accomplished by creating connecting channels to these basins. Gated control structures would be installed to restrict channel cross-sections to prevent increased saltwater intrusion during the late summer and fall when Atchafalaya River influence is typically low. Some auxiliary freshwater distribution structures such as culverts would be included. This project would also include increasing freshwater supply through enlarging constrictions in the GIWW. Dredging of certain canals would allow further freshwater circulation, and the dredged material would be placed in adjacent marshes in an effort to decrease marsh fragmentation. The placement of material in strategic locations to construct ridges, creating a terracing effect, would serve to slow freshwater movement and help prevent saltwater intrusion. Implementation of Alternative 2 would result in the generation of 3,220 average annual habitat units and a net gain of 9,665 acres of emergent marsh habitat over the 50-year period of analysis. First cost of construction of the recommended plan is estimated to be $284.2 million. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed action would help to reverse the current trend of marsh degradation, so as to contribute towards achieving and sustaining a coastal ecosystem that can support and protect the environment, economy, and culture of Southern Louisiana. The provision of additional freshwater, nutrients, and fine sediment to the area would reduce salinity levels, increase residence time of fresh water, facilitate organic sediment deposition, improve biological productivity, and prevent further deterioration. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction of project features would result in 148 acres of swamp, 343 acres of fresh marsh, 248 acres of intermediate marsh, and 182 acres of brackish marsh being directly converted to open water. Alternative 2 would also result in 23 acres of swamp being converted to upland levee. Considerable uncertainty exists with respect to ecosystem function and how the ecosystem components of interest would respond to the restoration project. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0216D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100395, Final EIS--560 pages and maps, Appendices--911 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Canals KW - Channels KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dikes KW - Diversion Structures KW - Dredging KW - Easements KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydraulic Assessments KW - Hydrology KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Rivers KW - Salinity KW - Salinity Control KW - Sediment KW - Water Quality Assessments KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Atchafalaya River KW - Gulf Intracoastal Waterway KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675537?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=CONVEY+ATCHAFALAYA+RIVER+WATER+TO+NORTHERN+TERREBONNE+MARSHES+AND+MULTIPURPOSE+OPERATION+OF+HOUMA+NAVIGATION+LOCK%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+LAFOURCHE%2C+TERREBONNE%2C+ST.+MARY+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. [Part 2 of 6] T2 - TERREBONNE BASIN BARRIER SHORELINE RESTORATION, LOUISIANA COASTAL AREA (LCA), TERREBONNE PARISH, LOUISIANA. AN - 853675535; 14667-100396_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The ecosystem restoration of 1,272 acres of dune, supratidal, and intertidal habitat along the barrier island shoreline, Terrebonne Parish, Louisiana is proposed. The project is one element of a Louisiana Coastal Area feasibility study to identify cost-effective, near-term restoration features addressing the most critical needs of coastal Louisiana. The Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline is comprised of two barrier island reaches: Isles Dernieres and the Timbalier Islands. The Isles Dernieres chain extends 22 miles and includes Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands. The 20-mile long Timbalier reach includes Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands. These barrier islands have undergone significant reductions in size due to a number of natural processes and human actions including lack of sediment, storm-induced erosion and breaching, subsidence, sea level rise, and hydrologic modifications such as navigation and oil and gas canals. The habitat losses have had a direct adverse impact on wildlife and fisheries resources including threatened and endangered species. Loss of the barrier island habitat also leaves the fragile saline, brackish, and fresh marshes in the upper reaches of the Terrebonne Basin more vulnerable to the high energy marine coastal processes which have exacerbated wetland loss in these areas. Without action, this critical geomorphic feature that isolates the Terrebonne Basin estuaries from the Gulf of Mexico will continue to degrade, existing breaches will widen and new breaches will form, and portions of the project area will disappear in the near term. Raccoon, Whiskey, Trinity, East, and Wine Islands are expected to completely disappear by 2052 if no action is taken. By 2062, Timbalier and East Timbalier Islands will only have six acres of subaerial habitat left. The proposed project would investigate introducing sediment to this sediment-starved system, reducing the current number of breaches, and enlarging the width and dune crest of the islands. Some features being considered are island nourishment using offshore sand sources, offshore wave breaks, feeder berms, strategic use of vegetative plantings, sand fencing, and bayside marsh creation. Six alternative plans, including a No Action Alternative, are analyzed in this final EIS and Integrated Feasibility Study. Alternative 5 was selected as the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan and would create a total of 472 acres of dune habitat, 4,320 acres of supratidal habitat, and 1,048 acres of intertidal habitat immediately after construction. The islands would also be periodically renourished in order to maintain their geomorphologic form and ecologic function throughout the 50-year period of analysis. However, the plan cannot be constructed within the current the 2007 Water Resources Development Act authorization. Therefore, the recommended first component of construction is Alternative 11, a subset of the NER plan, which would add 469 acres of habitat (dune, supratidal, and intertidal) immediately after construction. Costs of construction and the two renourishment cycles are estimated at $119 million and $341 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Ecosystem restoration and reconstruction of coastal landforms of the barrier shoreline could help to maintain the integrity of the Terrebonne Basin barrier shoreline system and increase habitat availability for migratory birds, wildlife, and aquatic organisms. Implementation of the recommended increment of construction would provide 1,272 acres of dune, intertidal, and supratidal habitat. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: A total of 11.76 million cubic yards of borrow material would be required for implementing Alternative 11. The project would impact up to 1,548 acres of waterbottoms and 2,109 acres of fragmented barrier habitats and the benthic organisms therein. These impacts would be in addition to those caused by other wetland creation/nourishment and shoreline protection actions. However, any such impacts would be offset by the additional higher quality habitats restored. The recommended increment for construction would not stop the problems causing coastal erosion. LEGAL MANDATES: Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451) and Water Resources Development Act of 2007 (Sec. 7006(e)(3)). JF - EPA number: 100396, Final EIS--687 pages, Appendices--686 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Coastal Zones KW - Cost Assessments KW - Dikes KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Erosion KW - Fish KW - Fisheries KW - Hydrology KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Sand KW - Sediment KW - Shores KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Gulf of Mexico KW - Louisiana KW - Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Compliance KW - Water Resources Development Act of 2007, Project Authorization UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675535?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.title=TERREBONNE+BASIN+BARRIER+SHORELINE+RESTORATION%2C+LOUISIANA+COASTAL+AREA+%28LCA%29%2C+TERREBONNE+PARISH%2C+LOUISIANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, New Orleans, Louisiana; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Sample preparation and digestion considerations for determining metal deposition at small arms ranges AN - 817606598; 13894182 AB - Determining the metal content of soil collected from small arms training ranges (SARs) is difficult and controversial because the contamination consists of fine particulates abraded from bullets and larger fragments such as intact bullets and spent shell casings. This heterogeneous distribution of materials can be difficult to sample reproducibly and difficult to prepare for analysis. Similar issues are encountered with sampling and analysing solid residues of energetic compounds for which grinding to 75 microns is necessary to achieve excellent precision. Issues to be resolved for SAR metals include the necessity of sieving, the extent of contamination from grinding, and the proper digestion procedure for efficient recovery. The work reported in this manuscript employed field and laboratory sampling approaches developed for energetics and examined a variety of laboratory sample preparation techniques for SAR metals. Application of the sampling approaches used for energetics to metals was straightforward. The US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) nitric acid digestion procedure is effective for the recovery of three of the most important SAR metals, copper, lead and zinc, when analysing a 2 g portion of the <2 mm fraction of an unground soil sample. However, sieving the sample ignores a large portion of the total metal load and a total digestion with hydrofluoric acid is necessary to determine the concentration of all naturally-occurring metals in the sample. Finally, the USEPA-approved method for metal analysis is inappropriate for tungsten unless supplemented with phosphoric acid. JF - International Journal of Environmental and Analytical Chemistry AU - Clausen, Jay L AU - Kaste, James AU - Ketterer, Michael AU - Korte, Nic AD - Engineer Research and Development Center/Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH 03755-1290, USA Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - October 2010 SP - 903 EP - 921 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN UK VL - 90 IS - 12 SN - 0306-7319, 0306-7319 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - soil contamination KW - tungsten KW - lead KW - copper KW - sample preparation KW - Contamination KW - Heavy metals KW - Copper KW - Lead KW - Tungsten KW - Digestion KW - Soil KW - Sample Preparation KW - Zinc KW - Nitric acid KW - Phosphoric acid KW - Sampling KW - phosphoric acid KW - Metals KW - Residues KW - Laboratories KW - Geochemistry KW - Solids KW - Nitric acids KW - Environmental protection KW - EPA KW - Pollutant deposition KW - Acids KW - Shells KW - SW 3050:Ultimate disposal of wastes KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments KW - X 24360:Metals KW - Q2 09186:Chemistry of suspended matter KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/817606598?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Sample+preparation+and+digestion+considerations+for+determining+metal+deposition+at+small+arms+ranges&rft.au=Clausen%2C+Jay+L%3BKaste%2C+James%3BKetterer%2C+Michael%3BKorte%2C+Nic&rft.aulast=Clausen&rft.aufirst=Jay&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=90&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=903&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=International+Journal+of+Environmental+and+Analytical+Chemistry&rft.issn=03067319&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F03067310903353495 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-12-01 N1 - Number of references - 27 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-04 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Contamination; Heavy metals; Geochemistry; Phosphoric acid; Nitric acids; Environmental protection; Lead; Tungsten; Soil; Digestion; Zinc; Nitric acid; Copper; Shells; Sampling; phosphoric acid; EPA; Metals; Pollutant deposition; Residues; Sample Preparation; Laboratories; Acids; Solids DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03067310903353495 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Functional Characterization of pGKT2, a 182-Kilobase Plasmid Containing the xplAB Genes, Which Are Involved in the Degradation of Hexahydro-1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-Triazine by Gordonia sp. Strain KTR9 AN - 807283625; 13812588 AB - Several microorganisms have been isolated that can transform hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitro-1,3,5-triazine (RDX), a cyclic nitramine explosive. To better characterize the microbial genes that facilitate this transformation, we sequenced and annotated a 182-kb plasmid, pGKT2, from the RDX-degrading strain Gordonia sp. KTR9. This plasmid carries xplA, encoding a protein sharing up to 99% amino acid sequence identity with characterized RDX-degrading cytochromes P450. Other genes that cluster with xplA are predicted to encode a glutamine synthase-XplB fusion protein, a second cytochrome P450, Cyp151C, and XplR, a GntR-type regulator. Rhodococcus jostii RHA1 expressing xplA from KTR9 degraded RDX but did not utilize RDX as a nitrogen source. Moreover, an Escherichia coli strain producing XplA degraded RDX but a strain producing Cyp151C did not. KTR9 strains cured of pGKT2 did not transform RDX. Physiological studies examining the effects of exogenous nitrogen sources on RDX degradation in strain KTR9 revealed that ammonium, nitrite, and nitrate each inhibited RDX degradation by up to 79%. Quantitative real-time PCR analysis of glnA-xplB, xplA, and xplR showed that transcript levels were 3.7-fold higher during growth on RDX than during growth on ammonium and that this upregulation was repressed in the presence of various inorganic nitrogen sources. Overall, the results indicate that RDX degradation by KTR9 is integrated with central nitrogen metabolism and that the uptake of RDX by bacterial cells does not require a dedicated transporter. JF - Applied and Environmental Microbiology AU - Indest, Karl J AU - Jung, Carina M AU - Chen, Hao-Ping AU - Hancock, Dawn AU - Florizone, Christine AU - Eltis, Lindsay D AU - Crocker, Fiona H AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi. Department of Microbiology and Immunology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada Y1 - 2010/10/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Oct 01 SP - 6329 EP - 6337 PB - American Society for Microbiology, 1752 N Street N.W. Washington, DC 20036 USA VL - 76 IS - 19 SN - 0099-2240, 0099-2240 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology; Microbiology Abstracts B: Bacteriology; Genetics Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts KW - Absorption KW - Biodegradation KW - Degradation KW - Escherichia coli KW - Strain KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - G:07790 KW - A:01310 KW - SW 3010:Identification of pollutants KW - J:02320 KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/807283625?accountid=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=Applied+and+Environmental+Microbiology&rft.atitle=Functional+Characterization+of+pGKT2%2C+a+182-Kilobase+Plasmid+Containing+the+xplAB+Genes%2C+Which+Are+Involved+in+the+Degradation+of+Hexahydro-1%2C3%2C5-Trinitro-1%2C3%2C5-Triazine+by+Gordonia+sp.+Strain+KTR9&rft.au=Indest%2C+Karl+J%3BJung%2C+Carina+M%3BChen%2C+Hao-Ping%3BHancock%2C+Dawn%3BFlorizone%2C+Christine%3BEltis%2C+Lindsay+D%3BCrocker%2C+Fiona+H&rft.aulast=Indest&rft.aufirst=Karl&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=76&rft.issue=19&rft.spage=6329&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Applied+and+Environmental+Microbiology&rft.issn=00992240&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biodegradation; Degradation; Strain; Escherichia coli ER - TY - RPRT T1 - NC-109 CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT STUDY, FROM OLD GREENSBORO ROAD (NC-1798) TO I-40/US 311, DAVIDSON AND FORSYTH COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 772293292; 14665 AB - PURPOSE: Transportation improvements to the NC 109 corridor within the Piedmont region south of Winston-Salem in Davidson and Forsyth counties, North Carolina are proposed. NC 109 is the only direct route between Thomasville and Winston-Salem and functions as a north-south connector between Interstate 85 (I-85), I-85 Business, and I-40/US 311. Existing levels of service on some two-lane segments of NC 109 between Old Greensboro Road (SR 1798) and I-40/US 311 were unacceptable in 2008 and a total of 219 accidents were recorded along this section of roadway between February 2006 and January 2009. Traffic volumes are projected to increase by approximately 90 percent from 2008 to 2035. A No Build Alternative, several build alternatives, and one upgrade existing facility alternative are analyzed in this draft EIS. The new facility would be a four-lane median divided roadway with partial control of access, a design speed of 60 miles per hour (mph) and a posted speed limit of 55 mph. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would be used at major intersections and no signalized intersections are proposed. Driveway accesses along NC 109 would be right in, right out only. Left turns would be accomplished by making a U-turn at a median opening approximately one quarter mile from the intersection. Alternative 1 would upgrade the existing roadway and would be 9.5 miles long with 1.6 miles on new location. Alternative 3 would extend 9.5 miles with 7.75 miles on new location and would include six directional crossovers. Under Alternative 4, the roadway would extend 9.3 miles with 8.5 miles on new location and would include seven crossover intersections. Alternative 5 would extend 8.6 miles with 7.4 miles on new location and also would include seven crossovers. Alternative 6 is the longest at 10.1 miles and 8.7 miles on new location. Five crossover intersections would be included. Preliminary total cost estimates, including construction, right-of-way, and utility costs range from $119.0 million for Alternative 5, to $144.7 million for Alternative 1. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Project implementation would improve traffic flow and service, improve safety, and reduce conflicts between through traffic and local traffic in the project area. Directional crossovers with offset left turns would provide a safer facility by reducing the number of conflict points. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: New location development would further fragment wildlife habitat. Total direct wetland impacts would range from 0.14 acre to 0.58 acre. Stream crossings would range from 20 to 34, and stream impacts from 4,432 linear feet to 10,729 linear feet. All 5 build alternatives would cross the 100-year floodplains associated with Abbotts Creek and Brushey Fork. There could be individual and community property access impacts due to relocation of driveways and local roads. Alternatives 3 and 6 would result in displacements along the western edge of the Meadowlands community. Alternatives 4 and 5 would impact three neighborhoods along Gumtree Road west of Friendship-Ledford Road: Cedar Estates, Holly Acres, and Briers Creek. All five alternatives would impact power transmission line towers. Alternatives 1 , 3, and 6 could have minor visual and/or noise impacts on three historic properties: George W. Wall House, D. Austin Parker House, and Mark Parker House. All of the alternatives would introduce a visual intrusion into the largely rural landscape. Alternative 1 would result in highest number of total impacted noise receptors at 97, while Alternative 5 would result in the lowest number at 31 impacted noise receptors. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.) and Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 (42 U.S.C. 4601). JF - EPA number: 100394, 246 pages, October 1, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Creeks KW - Historic Sites KW - Noise KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions KW - Roads KW - Safety KW - Traffic Analyses KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/772293292?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=NC-109+CORRIDOR+IMPROVEMENT+STUDY%2C+FROM+OLD+GREENSBORO+ROAD+%28NC-1798%29+TO+I-40%2FUS+311%2C+DAVIDSON+AND+FORSYTH+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Raleigh, North Carolina; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: October 1, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toxicity and bioconcentration evaluation of RDX and HMX using sheepshead minnows in water exposures AN - 762270228; 13809109 AB - Lethal effects of the explosives RDX and HMX were assessed using ten-day water exposures to juvenile sheepshead minnows (Cyprinodon variegatus). For RDX, maximum mortality occurred during the first two days of exposure with a 10-d median lethal concentration (LC50) of 9.9mgL super(-1). The RDX 10-d median lethal residue (LR50) was 9.6mgkg super(-1) (34.9 mu molkg super(-1)) wet weight (ww), the first RDX critical body residue reported for fish. Previous investigations reported that RDX body residues in marine amphipods up to 96 mu molkg super(-1) ww and in marine mussels up to 86 mu molkg super(-1) ww failed to result in significant mortality. The highest HMX concentration tested, corresponding to its apparent solubility limit in seawater (2.0mgL super(-1)), and the associated mean body residue (3mgkg super(-1) or 14 mu molkg super(-1) ww) resulted in no significant mortality for exposed minnows. The mean 10-d bioconcentration factors for RDX (0.6-0.9Lkg super(-1)) and HMX (0.3-1.6Lkg super(-1)) were typically lower than 1, reflecting the low bioaccumulative potential for these compounds. JF - Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AU - Gibson, Alfreda B AU - Leslie Yoo, J AD - U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - Oct 2010 SP - 1653 EP - 1657 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 73 IS - 7 SN - 0147-6513, 0147-6513 KW - Health & Safety Science Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; Toxicology Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Pollution Abstracts KW - Explosives KW - RDX KW - HMX KW - Toxicity KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Critical body residue KW - Cyprinodon variegatus KW - Seawater KW - Biological Magnification KW - Freshwater KW - Freshwater fish KW - Toxicity tests KW - Environmental factors KW - Ecotoxicology KW - Marine environment KW - Exposure KW - Pollution indicators KW - Mortality KW - Solubility KW - Residues KW - Mussels KW - Amphipods KW - Lethal limits KW - Water Pollution Effects KW - lethal effects KW - Fish KW - Mortality causes KW - H 7000:Fire Safety KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - Q5 08502:Methods and instruments KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - X 24350:Industrial Chemicals UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762270228?accountid=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=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.atitle=Toxicity+and+bioconcentration+evaluation+of+RDX+and+HMX+using+sheepshead+minnows+in+water+exposures&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+Guilherme+R%3BGibson%2C+Alfreda+B%3BLeslie+Yoo%2C+J&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=Guilherme&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1653&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.issn=01476513&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoenv.2010.02.006 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-03-19 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Bioaccumulation; Ecotoxicology; Lethal limits; Toxicity; Freshwater fish; Environmental factors; Pollution indicators; Toxicity tests; Mortality causes; Mortality; Solubility; Marine environment; Explosives; Residues; Seawater; Fish; lethal effects; Mussels; Amphipods; Water Pollution Effects; Exposure; Biological Magnification; Cyprinodon variegatus; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.02.006 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Dredging processes and remedy effectiveness: Relationship to the 4 Rs of environmental dredging. AN - 755400912; 20872643 AB - Timely and effective remediation of contaminated sediments is essential for protecting human health and the environment and restoring beneficial uses to waterways. A number of site operational conditions influence the effect of environmental dredging of contaminated sediment on aquatic systems. Site experience shows that resuspension of contaminated sediment and release of contaminants occur during dredging and that contaminated sediment residuals will remain after operations. It is also understood that these processes affect the magnitude, distribution, and bioavailability of the contaminants, and hence the exposure and risk to receptors of concern. However, even after decades of sediment remediation project experience, substantial uncertainties still exist in our understanding of the cause-effect relationships relating dredging processes to risk. During the past few years, contaminated sediment site managers, researchers, and practitioners have recognized the need to better define and understand dredging-related processes. In this article, we present information and research needs on these processes as synthesized from recent symposia, reports, and remediation efforts. Although predictions about the effect of environmental dredging continue to improve, a clear need remains to better understand the effect that sediment remediation processes have on contaminant exposures and receptors of concern. Collecting, learning from, and incorporating new information into practice is the only avenue to improving the effectiveness of remedial operations. © 2010 SETAC. JF - Integrated environmental assessment and management AU - Bridges, Todd S AU - Gustavson, Karl E AU - Schroeder, Paul AU - Ells, Stephen J AU - Hayes, Donald AU - Nadeau, Steven C AU - Palermo, Michael R AU - Patmont, Clay AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA. Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - October 2010 SP - 619 EP - 630 VL - 6 IS - 4 KW - Water KW - 059QF0KO0R KW - Index Medicus KW - Risk KW - Animals KW - Humans KW - Water -- chemistry KW - Air KW - Geologic Sediments -- chemistry KW - Environmental Restoration and Remediation -- methods KW - Environmental Pollution UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/755400912?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Atoxline&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Integrated+environmental+assessment+and+management&rft.atitle=Dredging+processes+and+remedy+effectiveness%3A+Relationship+to+the+4+Rs+of+environmental+dredging.&rft.au=Bridges%2C+Todd+S%3BGustavson%2C+Karl+E%3BSchroeder%2C+Paul%3BElls%2C+Stephen+J%3BHayes%2C+Donald%3BNadeau%2C+Steven+C%3BPalermo%2C+Michael+R%3BPatmont%2C+Clay&rft.aulast=Bridges&rft.aufirst=Todd&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=6&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=619&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Integrated+environmental+assessment+and+management&rft.issn=1551-3793&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fieam.71 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date completed - 2011-01-13 N1 - Date created - 2010-09-27 N1 - Date revised - 2017-01-13 N1 - Last updated - 2017-01-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ieam.71 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - One-electron standard reduction potentials of nitroaromatic and cyclic nitramine explosives AN - 1844922157; 2016-101828 AB - Extensive studies have been conducted in the past decades to predict the environmental abiotic and biotic redox fate of nitroaromatic and nitramine explosives. However, surprisingly little information is available on one-electron standard reduction potentials (E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) )). The E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) ) is an essential thermodynamic parameter for predicting the rate and extent of reductive transformation for energetic residues. In this study, experimental (linear free energy relationships) and theoretical (ab initio calculation) approaches were employed to determine E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) ) for nitroaromatic, (caged) cyclic nitramine, and nitroimino explosives that are found in military installations or are emerging contaminants. The results indicate a close agreement between experimental and theoretical E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) ) and suggest a key trend: E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) ) value decreases from di- and tri-nitroaromatic (e.g., 2,4-dinitroanisole) to nitramine (e.g., RDX) to nitroimino compound (e.g., nitroguanidine). The observed trend in E (super o) (R-NO (sub 2) /R-NO (sub 2) (super -) ) agrees with reported rate trends for reductive degradation, suggesting a thermodynamic control on the reduction rate under anoxic/suboxic conditions. Abstract Copyright (2010) Elsevier, B.V. JF - Environmental Pollution (1987) AU - Uchimiya, Minori AU - Gorb, Leonid AU - Isayev, Olexandr AU - Qasim, Mohammad M AU - Leszczynski, Jerzy Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - October 2010 SP - 3048 EP - 3053 PB - Elsevier, Barking VL - 158 IS - 10 SN - 0269-7491, 0269-7491 KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - trinitrotoluene KW - RDX KW - free energy KW - environmental effects KW - triazines KW - organic compounds KW - HMX KW - explosives KW - chemical reactions KW - nitramines KW - hydrocarbons KW - anaerobic environment KW - reduction KW - thermodynamic properties KW - Eh KW - aromatic hydrocarbons KW - electrons KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1844922157?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Pollution+%281987%29&rft.atitle=One-electron+standard+reduction+potentials+of+nitroaromatic+and+cyclic+nitramine+explosives&rft.au=Uchimiya%2C+Minori%3BGorb%2C+Leonid%3BIsayev%2C+Olexandr%3BQasim%2C+Mohammad+M%3BLeszczynski%2C+Jerzy&rft.aulast=Uchimiya&rft.aufirst=Minori&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=158&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=3048&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Pollution+%281987%29&rft.issn=02697491&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.envpol.2010.06.033 L2 - http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/02697491 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2016, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data from CAPCAS, Elsevier Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam, Netherlands N1 - Date revised - 2016-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 42 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2016-12-01 N1 - CODEN - ENVPAF N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - anaerobic environment; aromatic hydrocarbons; chemical reactions; Eh; electrons; environmental effects; explosives; free energy; HMX; hydrocarbons; nitramines; organic compounds; pollutants; pollution; RDX; reduction; thermodynamic properties; triazines; trinitrotoluene DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2010.06.033 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toxicity and bioaccumulation of TNT in marine fish in sediment exposures AN - 1777152059; 13809099 AB - The bioaccumulation potential and toxicity of 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT) spiked to sediment was evaluated in juvenile sheepshead minnows (JSHM, Cyprinodon variegatus) and adult freckled blennies (FB, Hypsoblennius ionthas). The JSHM were exposed for 4 days in the presence or absence of a mesh separating fish from sediment. FB were exposed to sediment for 7 days. During the 24-day storage period (4 degree C), extensive transformation of spiked TNT occurred and concentrations are expressed as the sum of TNT, aminodinitrotoluenes and diaminonitrotoluenes (SumTNT), on a dry weight basis. SumTNT in the overlying water, not exchanged during exposure, increased gradually. Survival was high ( greater than or equal to 90%) for JSHM exposed to 7mgkg super(-1) and FB exposed to up to 260mgkg super(-1). All SHM died after 24h exposure to 340mgkg super(-1). Isolation from sediment did not significantly affect water concentrations or decrease bioaccumulation. Uptake from contact to sediment was likely negligible and bioaccumulation was from the overlying water. The feeding rate of FB exposed to 1700 mu molkg super(-1) sediment suspended in water for 24-h was significantly reduced by 50%. JF - Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety AU - Lotufo, Guilherme R AU - Blackburn, William AU - Marlborough, Sydney J AU - Fleeger, John W AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - October 2010 SP - 1720 EP - 1727 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 73 IS - 7 SN - 0147-6513, 0147-6513 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - Explosives KW - TNT KW - Sediment KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Cyprinodon variegatus KW - Hypsoblennius ionthas KW - Uptakes KW - Transformations KW - Exposure KW - Survival KW - Fish KW - Toxicity KW - Sediments KW - Marine KW - Freshwater UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1777152059?accountid=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=Toxicity+and+bioaccumulation+of+TNT+in+marine+fish+in+sediment+exposures&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+Guilherme+R%3BBlackburn%2C+William%3BMarlborough%2C+Sydney+J%3BFleeger%2C+John+W&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=Guilherme&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=7&rft.spage=1720&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Ecotoxicology+and+Environmental+Safety&rft.issn=01476513&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.ecoenv.2010.02.009 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Marine; Freshwater DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2010.02.009 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Toward Identifying the Next Generation of Superfund and Hazardous Waste Site Contaminants AN - 1677913450; 14389121 AB - This commentary evolved from a workshop sponsored by the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences titled "Superfund Contaminants: The Next Generation" held in Tucson, Arizona, in August 2009. All the authors were workshop participants. Our aim was to initiate a dynamic, adaptable process for identifying contaminants of emerging concern (CECs) that are likely to be found in future hazardous waste sites, and to identify the gaps in primary research that cause uncertainty in determining future hazardous waste site contaminants. Superfund-relevant CECs can be characterized by specific attributes: They are persistent, bioaccumulative, toxic, occur in large quantities, and have localized accumulation with a likelihood of exposure. Although still under development and incompletely applied, methods to quantify these attributes can assist in winnowing down the list of candidates from the universe of potential CECs. Unfortunately, significant research gaps exist in detection and quantification, environmental fate and transport, health and risk assessment, and site exploration and remediation for CECs. Addressing these gaps is prerequisite to a preventive approach to generating and managing hazardous waste sites. A need exists for a carefully considered and orchestrated expansion of programmatic and research efforts to identify, evaluate, and manage CECs of hazardous waste site relevance, including developing an evolving list of priority CECs, intensifying the identification and monitoring of likely sites of present or future accumulation of CECs, and implementing efforts that focus on a holistic approach to prevention. JF - Environmental Health Perspectives AU - Ela, Wendell P AU - Sedlak, David L AU - Barlaz, Morton A AU - Henry, Heather F AU - Muir, Derek CG AU - Swackhamer, Deborah L AU - Weber, Eric J AU - Arnold, Robert G AU - Ferguson, PLee AU - Field, Jennifer A AU - Furlong, Edward T AU - Giesy, John P AU - Halden, Rolf U AU - Henry, Tala AU - Hites, Ronald A AU - Hornbuckle, Keri C AU - Howard, Philip H AU - Luthy, Richard G AU - Meyer, Anita K AU - Saez, AEduardo AU - vom Saal, Frederick S AU - Vulpe, Chris D AU - Wiesner, Mark R AD - Environmental and Munitions Center of Expertise, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha, Nebraska, USA Y1 - 2010/10/01/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Oct 01 SP - 6 EP - 10 PB - US Government Printing Office, Superintendent of Documents, P.O. Box 371954 Pittsburgh PA 15250-7954 USA VL - 119 IS - 1 SN - 0091-6765, 0091-6765 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) KW - contaminants of emerging concern KW - emerging contaminant KW - hazardous waste site KW - Superfund KW - Workshops KW - Gaps KW - Remediation KW - Pollution abatement KW - Health KW - Contaminants KW - Lists KW - Hazardous wastes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1677913450?accountid=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+Health+Perspectives&rft.atitle=Toward+Identifying+the+Next+Generation+of+Superfund+and+Hazardous+Waste+Site+Contaminants&rft.au=Ela%2C+Wendell+P%3BSedlak%2C+David+L%3BBarlaz%2C+Morton+A%3BHenry%2C+Heather+F%3BMuir%2C+Derek+CG%3BSwackhamer%2C+Deborah+L%3BWeber%2C+Eric+J%3BArnold%2C+Robert+G%3BFerguson%2C+PLee%3BField%2C+Jennifer+A%3BFurlong%2C+Edward+T%3BGiesy%2C+John+P%3BHalden%2C+Rolf+U%3BHenry%2C+Tala%3BHites%2C+Ronald+A%3BHornbuckle%2C+Keri+C%3BHoward%2C+Philip+H%3BLuthy%2C+Richard+G%3BMeyer%2C+Anita+K%3BSaez%2C+AEduardo%3Bvom+Saal%2C+Frederick+S%3BVulpe%2C+Chris+D%3BWiesner%2C+Mark+R&rft.aulast=Ela&rft.aufirst=Wendell&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=119&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=6&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Health+Perspectives&rft.issn=00916765&rft_id=info:doi/10.1289%2Fehp.1002497 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-05-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-05-18 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1002497 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Spatial distribution of lead concentrations in urban surface soils of New Orleans, Louisiana USA AN - 1673365961; 2015-034609 AB - Immediately following hurricane Katrina concern was raised over the environmental impact of floodwaters on the city of New Orleans, especially in regard to human health. Several studies were conducted to determine the actual contaminant distribution throughout the city and surrounding wetlands by analyzing soil, sediment, and water for a variety of contaminants including organics, inorganics, and biologics. Preliminary investigations by The Institute of Environmental and Human Health at Texas Tech University concluded that soils and sediments contained pesticides, semi-volatiles, and metals, specifically arsenic, iron, and lead, at concentrations that could pose a significant risk to human health. Additional studies on New Orleans floodwaters revealed similar constituents as well as compounds commonly found in gasoline. More recently, it has been revealed that lead (Pb), arsenic, and vanadium are found intermittently throughout the city at concentrations greater than the human health soil screening levels (HHSSLs) of 400, 22 (non-cancer endpoint) and 390 mu g/g, respectively. Of these, Pb appears to present the greatest exposure hazard to humans as a result of its extensive distribution in city soils. In this study, we spatially evaluated Pb concentrations across greater New Orleans surface soils. We established 128 sampling sites throughout New Orleans at approximately half-mile intervals. A soil sample was collected at each site and analyzed for Pb by ICP-AES. Soils from 19 (15%) of the sites had Pb concentrations exceeding the HHSSL threshold of 400 mu g/g. It was determined that the highest concentrations of Pb were found in the south and west portions of the city. Pb concentrations found throughout New Orleans in this study were then incorporated into a geographic information system to create a spatial distribution model that can be further used to predict Pb exposure to humans in the city. Copyright 2010 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. JF - Environmental Geochemistry and Health AU - Abel, Michael T AU - Suedel, Burton AU - Presley, Steven M AU - Rainwater, Thomas R AU - Austin, Galen P AU - Cox, Stephen B AU - McDaniel, Les N AU - Rigdon, Richard AU - Goebel, Timothy AU - Zartman, Richard AU - Leftwich, Blair D AU - Anderson, Todd A AU - Kendall, Ronald J AU - Cobb, George P Y1 - 2010/10// PY - 2010 DA - October 2010 SP - 379 EP - 389 PB - Springer, London VL - 32 IS - 5 SN - 0269-4042, 0269-4042 KW - United States KW - soils KW - concentration KW - New Orleans Louisiana KW - geotraverses KW - pollution KW - mass spectra KW - lead KW - mapping KW - urban environment KW - emission spectra KW - ICP mass spectra KW - spatial distribution KW - Orleans Parish Louisiana KW - quantitative analysis KW - levels KW - soil pollution KW - metals KW - spectra KW - Louisiana KW - public health KW - 02C:Geochemistry of rocks, soils, and sediments KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1673365961?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Geochemistry+and+Health&rft.atitle=Spatial+distribution+of+lead+concentrations+in+urban+surface+soils+of+New+Orleans%2C+Louisiana+USA&rft.au=Abel%2C+Michael+T%3BSuedel%2C+Burton%3BPresley%2C+Steven+M%3BRainwater%2C+Thomas+R%3BAustin%2C+Galen+P%3BCox%2C+Stephen+B%3BMcDaniel%2C+Les+N%3BRigdon%2C+Richard%3BGoebel%2C+Timothy%3BZartman%2C+Richard%3BLeftwich%2C+Blair+D%3BAnderson%2C+Todd+A%3BKendall%2C+Ronald+J%3BCobb%2C+George+P&rft.aulast=Abel&rft.aufirst=Michael&rft.date=2010-10-01&rft.volume=32&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=379&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Geochemistry+and+Health&rft.issn=02694042&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10653-009-9282-1 L2 - http://www.springerlink.com/content/100162/ LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2015, American Geosciences Institute. Reference includes data supplied by Springer Verlag, Berlin, Federal Republic of Germany N1 - Date revised - 2015-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 28 N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table, sketch maps N1 - Last updated - 2015-04-16 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - concentration; emission spectra; geotraverses; ICP mass spectra; lead; levels; Louisiana; mapping; mass spectra; metals; New Orleans Louisiana; Orleans Parish Louisiana; pollution; public health; quantitative analysis; soil pollution; soils; spatial distribution; spectra; United States; urban environment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10653-009-9282-1 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 5 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876254131; 14662-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876254131?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 14 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253258; 14662-1_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253258?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 13 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253257; 14662-1_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253257?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 12 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253256; 14662-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253256?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 11 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253255; 14662-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253255?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 10 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253254; 14662-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253254?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 9 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253253; 14662-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253253?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 8 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253252; 14662-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253252?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 7 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876253251; 14662-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876253251?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 18 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251950; 14662-1_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251950?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 17 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251949; 14662-1_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251949?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 16 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251948; 14662-1_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251948?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 15 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876251947; 14662-1_0015 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 15 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876251947?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 6 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876249231; 14662-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876249231?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 23 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248659; 14662-1_0023 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 23 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248659?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 22 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248655; 14662-1_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248655?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 21 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248651; 14662-1_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248651?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 20 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248646; 14662-1_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248646?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 19 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876248642; 14662-1_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876248642?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 2 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876246322; 14662-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876246322?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 1 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876245905; 14662-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245905?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 4 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876245727; 14662-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245727?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. [Part 3 of 23] T2 - SURF CITY AND NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH COASTAL STORM DAMAGE REDUCTION PROJECT, PENDER AND ONSLOW COUNTIES, NORTH CAROLINA. AN - 876245722; 14662-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Measures to reduce damage from coastal storms to the towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach located on Topsail Island on the southeastern coast of North Carolina are proposed. Topsail Island is a 22-mile long and 0.5-mile wide barrier island that faces the Atlantic Ocean on the southeast. The study area includes 17 miles of shoreline extending from the town limits to the northern end of the island. From the shoreline, the study area extends landward 500 feet and seaward for one mile. It also includes offshore borrow areas lying one to six miles offshore and in the New River Inlet. The towns of Surf City and North Topsail Beach, which are the sponsors of the project, are urbanized beach communities where land use is primarily recreational and residential with a few commercial properties. Located between Cape Lookout and Cape Fear, Topsail Island is a frequent target for hurricanes and tropical storms tracking along the mid-Atlantic coast. Between 1963 and 2002, erosion rates were relatively low in the southern half of the study area; however, erosion rates in the northern half averaged nearly 2 feet per year. Major storms in the late 1990s caused significant erosion and decimated the island's natural dunes, resulting in major property damage. The recommended plan of action is the National Economic Development plan, also identified as Plan 1550, which would involve construction of a sand dune to an elevation of 15 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), fronted by a 50-foot wide beach berm constructed to an elevation of 7 feet above NGVD. The berm and dune would extend along a reach of 52,150 feet and at the project ends would transition to terminate gradually according to conditions existing at construction. On the north end, the project would adjoin an adjacent non-federal beachfill project for North Topsail Beach. At the south end the project would transition into the federal beachfill project for the town of Topsail Beach. In addition to the beachfill alternative, this final EIS considers a No Action alternative and a nonstructural alternative which would consist of retreats, relocations, and demolitions applied to threatened structures on an individual case basis. Initial costs of the proposed project are estimated in 2010 dollars at $127.97 million. The total cost of seven renourishments conducted at six-year intervals is estimated at $215.53 million in 2010 dollars. The project cost-benefit ratio is 3.5 to 1 based on expected benefits from storm damage reduction, recreation, and construction. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The proposed beachfill plan would improve recreational quality on an expanded beach, provide greater protection of property, and reduce combined wave and erosion damages by 88 percent. Placement of fill would increase nesting habitat for sea turtles. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Beachfill operations could affect piping plover foraging, sheltering, and roosting areas on the beach. Loggerhead, Kemp's Ridley, leatherback, and green sea turtle could be affected by construction, periodic nourishment activities, and hopper dredging. Bottom substrate and bathymetry within 4,210 acres of nearshore ocean would be modified. The project would not prevent damage from sound side flooding and property would continue to be subject to saltwater flooding that could flow through New Topsail Inlet, New River Inlet, and soundside channels. LEGAL MANDATES: River and Harbor Act of 1960 and Water Resources Development Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-662). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0181D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100391, Final EIS--313 pages and CD-ROM, Appendices A through U--CD-ROM, September 30, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Water KW - Archaeological Sites Surveys KW - Beaches KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Birds KW - Borrow Pits KW - Endangered Species (Animals) KW - Coastal Zones KW - Dredging KW - Dunes KW - Easements KW - Economic Assessments KW - Erosion KW - Erosion Control KW - Fish KW - Geologic Assessments KW - Hurricane Readiness Plans KW - Hurricanes KW - Impact Monitoring Plans KW - Islands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Recreation KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Sand KW - Shores KW - Section 404(b) Statements KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - North Carolina KW - River and Harbor Act of 1960, Project Authorization KW - Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/876245722?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-30&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.title=SURF+CITY+AND+NORTH+TOPSAIL+BEACH+COASTAL+STORM+DAMAGE+REDUCTION+PROJECT%2C+PENDER+AND+ONSLOW+COUNTIES%2C+NORTH+CAROLINA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington, North Carolina; ARMY N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 30, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Prioritization of sediment management alternatives using stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis AN - 787096496; 13531277 AB - Decision-making for sediment management is a complex task that requires the consideration of temporal and spatial impacts of several remedial alternatives as well as the associated economic, social and political impact. Multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) is becoming increasingly recognized as an important environmental management tool that can be used to support the selection of suitable remediation alternatives and prioritization of management units in space and time. This paper proposes an MCDA framework for prioritizing sediment management alternatives. This framework involves identifying of a set of feasible options, as well as defining and evaluating criteria which integrate relevant technical, economic, social and environmental aspects of remedies. The methodology allows an explicit consideration of uncertainty in criteria scores and weights by assigning probability distributions and analyzing subsequent Monte-Carlo simulations. The consideration of different stakeholder simulated values is used to assess the robustness of alternative rankings and to guide the selection of remediation options. An application of this methodology to a case study in the Bay of Santander, Spain, is presented. An assessment is conducted for the case of unknown preferences as well as for hypothetical preferences profiles for four types of stakeholders: Idealist, Politician, Environmentalist and Balanced. The results are used to visualize stakeholder positions and potential disagreements, allowing for the identification of a group of least preferred alternatives for each stakeholder. Stakeholder involvement has the potential to ease the remedy selection process during all stages of the decision-making process and to eventually remedy implementation. JF - Science of the Total Environment AU - Alvarez-Guerra, Manuel AU - Canis, Laure AU - Voulvoulis, Nikolaos AU - Viguri, Javier R AU - Linkov, Igor AD - Department of Chemical Engineering and Inorganic Chemistry, ETSIIT, University of Cantabria, Avda. de los Castros s/n 39005, Santander, Spain, Igor.Linkov@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/09/15/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Sep 15 SP - 4354 EP - 4367 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 408 IS - 20 SN - 0048-9697, 0048-9697 KW - Environment Abstracts; Oceanic Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Pollution Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Monte Carlo simulation KW - Bioremediation KW - Politics KW - Remedies KW - Decision Making KW - acceptability KW - Assessments KW - Economics KW - stakeholders KW - ANE, Spain KW - Probability Distribution KW - Case Studies KW - environmentalism KW - ANE, Spain, Cantabria, Santander KW - Identification KW - Sediments KW - case studies KW - Profiles KW - Remediation KW - Environment management KW - AQ 00006:Sewage KW - Q2 09123:Conservation KW - O 4090:Conservation and Environmental Protection KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 4020:Evaluation process KW - ENA 12:Oceans & Estuaries UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/787096496?accountid=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=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.atitle=Prioritization+of+sediment+management+alternatives+using+stochastic+multicriteria+acceptability+analysis&rft.au=Alvarez-Guerra%2C+Manuel%3BCanis%2C+Laure%3BVoulvoulis%2C+Nikolaos%3BViguri%2C+Javier+R%3BLinkov%2C+Igor&rft.aulast=Alvarez-Guerra&rft.aufirst=Manuel&rft.date=2010-09-15&rft.volume=408&rft.issue=20&rft.spage=4354&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Science+of+the+Total+Environment&rft.issn=00489697&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.scitotenv.2010.07.016 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - Number of references - 17 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-29 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Remediation; Identification; Sediments; case studies; Monte Carlo simulation; acceptability; Bioremediation; Politics; Economics; environmentalism; Environment management; stakeholders; Probability Distribution; Assessments; Profiles; Case Studies; Remedies; Decision Making; ANE, Spain; ANE, Spain, Cantabria, Santander DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2010.07.016 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - 2,4,6-Triamino-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (TATB) and TATB-based formulations--A review AN - 787049493; 13218005 AB - This paper reviews the research and development work on 2,4,6-triamino-1,3,5-trinitrobenzene (TATB), and TATB-based formulations of other explosives. Syntheses including the production of nano-sized particles, analytical methods, thermophysical properties, performance, formulations, toxicity and safety of TATB are reviewed in this work. JF - Journal of Hazardous Materials AU - Boddu, Veera M AU - Viswanath, Dabir S AU - Ghosh, Tushar K AU - Damavarapu, R AD - Environmental Processes Branch, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory, Engineering Research and Development Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Champaign, IL 61826, United States, viswanathd@missouri.edu Y1 - 2010/09/15/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Sep 15 SP - 1 EP - 8 PB - Elsevier Science, P.O. Box 211 Amsterdam 1000 AE Netherlands VL - 181 IS - 1-3 SN - 0304-3894, 0304-3894 KW - Toxicology Abstracts; Environment Abstracts; ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality KW - TATB KW - Synthesis KW - Structure KW - Physical and thermodynamic properties KW - Formulations KW - Review KW - Hazardous materials KW - Reviews KW - Particulates KW - Explosives KW - Toxicity KW - Research KW - Research programs KW - Q5 08504:Effects on organisms KW - X 24350:Industrial Chemicals KW - ENA 07:General UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/787049493?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Aasfaaquaticpollution&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.atitle=2%2C4%2C6-Triamino-1%2C3%2C5-trinitrobenzene+%28TATB%29+and+TATB-based+formulations--A+review&rft.au=Boddu%2C+Veera+M%3BViswanath%2C+Dabir+S%3BGhosh%2C+Tushar+K%3BDamavarapu%2C+R&rft.aulast=Boddu&rft.aufirst=Veera&rft.date=2010-09-15&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=1-3&rft.spage=1&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Hazardous+Materials&rft.issn=03043894&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.jhazmat.2010.04.120 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-04-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-02-18 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Hazardous materials; Research; Toxicity; Reviews; Explosives; Particulates; Research programs DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2010.04.120 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 13 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676738; 14649-100377_0013 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 13 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 10 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676733; 14649-100377_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676733?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 9 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676717; 14649-100377_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676717?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 21 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676437; 14649-100377_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676437?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 19 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676436; 14649-100377_0019 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 19 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676436?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 20 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676259; 14649-100377_0020 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 20 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676259?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 5 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853676245; 14649-100377_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853676245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 4 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675915; 14649-100377_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 22 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675730; 14649-100377_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675730?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 12 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675664; 14649-100377_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 8 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675660; 14649-100377_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675660?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 7 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675652; 14649-100377_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675652?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 3 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675648; 14649-100377_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675648?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 17 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675626; 14649-100377_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675626?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675595; 14649-100377_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675595?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 18 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675548; 14649-100377_0018 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 18 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675548?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 6 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675547; 14649-100377_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675547?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 16 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675540; 14649-100377_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675540?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 14 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675538; 14649-100377_0014 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 14 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675538?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 22] T2 - TEHACHAPI RENEWABLE TRANSMISSION PROJECT, ANGELES NATIONAL FOREST AND KERN, LOS ANGELES, AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTIES, CALIFORNIA. AN - 853675536; 14649-100377_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Southern California Edison (SCE) proposes the construction of new and upgraded power transmission infrastructure along 173 miles of new and existing rights-of-way in Kern, Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties, California. The Tehachapi Renewable Transmission Project (TRTP) would traverse 42 miles of Angeles National Forest (ANF) and 6.4 miles of land owned by the Army Corps of Engineers in order to provide the electrical facilities necessary to serve future wind development projects in the Tehachapi Wind Resource Area (TWRA). Major components of the proposed project would include construction of the new Whirlwind substation and upgrades to five existing substations; building new single-circuit transmission lines connecting the proposed new Whirlwind substation to the existing Windhub, Cottonwood, and Antelope substations; and rebuilding approximately 128 miles of existing 220-kilovolt (kV) transmission lines to 500-kV standards. Key issues identified during scoping include those related to construction of a 500-kV transmission line through residential areas of the City of Chino Hills, proposed alternative routes through portions of Chino Hills State Park, and potential adverse effects on plans for construction of the River Commons Project adjacent to the San Gabriel River and on the native habitat and wildlife corridor established along the crest of the Puente Hills. In addition to the proposed project, the draft EIS of February, 2009 considered a No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), alternative transmission line routes, two alternatives placing segments of the transmission lines underground, and an alternative that would maximize the use of helicopters for construction purposes. A supplemental draft EIS, issued in April 2010, addressed changed conditions created by the Station Fire, the largest in the history of Los Angeles County, which burned 250 square miles in the ANF between August and October of 2009. Changes to SCE's proposed project include modified tower designs at two locations, the addition of eight new helicopter staging areas, three new access roads, and addition of three new wire setup sites. This final EIS evaluates seven alternatives: the No Action Alternative (Alternative 1), SCE's proposed action (Alternative 2), the West Lancaster Alternative (Alternative 3), Chino Hills Route Alternatives (Alternative 4, Routes A through D), the Partial Underground Alternative (Alternative 5), the Maximum Helicopter Construction in the ANF Alternative (Alternative 6), and the 66-kV Subtransmission Alternative (Alternative 7). POSITIVE IMPACTS: The TRTP would provide the electrical facilities necessary to integrate in excess of 700 megawatts (MW) and up to 4,500 MW of new wind generation in the TWRA currently being planned, address the reliability needs of the California Independent System Operator controlled grid due to projected load growth in the Antelope Valley, and address ongoing transmission constraints in the Los Angeles Basin. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Construction, operation and maintenance of the proposed project would result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use and would interfere with agricultural operations in some areas. Clearing, grading and construction could result in alteration of soil conditions, impacting native vegetation, and would affect wildlife in adjacent habitats, while use of access roads would result in temporary impacts to wildlife habitat. Construction activities would result in short-term impacts to air quality. New structures and rights-of-way would result in significant visual impact. Noise levels during construction would violate local standards. LEGAL MANDATES: Federal Power Act of 1920, as amended (16 U.S.C. 791(a) et seq.) and National Forest Management Act of 1976 (16 U.S.C. 1600 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstracts of the draft and supplemental draft EISs, see 09-0126D, Volume 33, Number 2 and 10-0045D, Volume 34, Number 1, respectively. JF - EPA number: 100377, Final EIS (Volume 1)--933 pages and maps, Final EIS (Volume 2)--482 pages and maps, Volume 3 (Appendices)--592 pages and maps, Draft EIS Comments and Responses--Volumes 4, 5, and 6, September 13, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Air Quality KW - Air Quality Assessments KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Farmlands KW - Forests KW - Helicopters KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Sediment Analyses KW - Soils KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - California KW - Angeles National Forest KW - Federal Power Act of 1920, Compliance KW - National Forest Management Act of 1976, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853675536?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-13&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=TEHACHAPI+RENEWABLE+TRANSMISSION+PROJECT%2C+ANGELES+NATIONAL+FOREST+AND+KERN%2C+LOS+ANGELES%2C+AND+SAN+BERNARDINO+COUNTIES%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Agoura Hills, California; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 13, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 12 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133710; 14643-1_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133710?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 11 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133709; 14643-1_0011 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 11 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133709?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 10 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133707; 14643-1_0010 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 10 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133707?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 9 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133706; 14643-1_0009 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 9 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133706?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 8 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133703; 14643-1_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133703?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 7 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133701; 14643-1_0007 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 7 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133701?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 6 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133700; 14643-1_0006 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 6 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133700?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 5 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873133698; 14643-1_0005 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 5 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133698?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 4 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131033; 14643-1_0004 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 4 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131033?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 3 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131024; 14643-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 3 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131024?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 2 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873131011; 14643-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. [Part 1 of 12] T2 - BEMIDJI - GRAND RAPIDS 230 KV TRANSMISSION LINE PROJECT, BELTRAMI, HUBBARD, CASS, AND ITASCA COUNTIES, MINNESOTA. AN - 873130987; 14643-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: Construction of a 230-kilovolt (kV) electric transmission line from just west of Bemidji to Cohasset, northwest of Grand Rapids, Minnesota is proposed. Otter Tail Power Company, Minnesota Power, and Minnkota Power Cooperative have applied for a special use permit to construct and operate the project on National Forest Service lands and have sought permission to cross the proclamation boundaries of the Leech Lake Indian Reservation. Minnkota Power Cooperative has also approached the Rural Utilities Service for financial assistance. Four route alternatives and a No Build Alternative are analyzed in this final EIS. All of the action alternatives would add equipment to the Wilton substation near Bemidji and expand the Boswell substation in Cohasset by 1.3 acres. Route Alternative 1 is comprised of 12 segment alternatives and would extend 69 miles and generally follow the Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company pipeline right-of-way (ROW). Under this alternative, a new 4-acre 230-kV substation would be constructed in Pike Bay Township in Cass County and a new breaker station could be constructed near the existing Nary Breaker station. Route Alternative 2, with 11 segment alternatives, would extend for 68 miles and generally follow U.S. Highway 2 and the Enbridge pipeline ROWs. The existing Cass Lake substation would be expanded by 2.2 acres to accommodate new equipment. The Route 3 Alternative would follow existing pipeline, transmission, and road ROWs for 116 miles and would avoid a major gateway of the Chippewa National Forest and bisecting the Leech Lake Reservation. No additional substations or breaker stations would be constructed or expanded. Alternative 4, identified by the applicants during the draft EIS comment period as their preferred route, is a combination of Route Alternatives 1 and 2. The route is approximately 69.5 miles long and follows Route Alternative 1 for 38.1 miles and Route Alternative 2 for 25.7 miles. Estimated total project costs for the four route alternatives are $65.4 million, $60.5 million, $94.1 million, and $63.5 million, respectively. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Construction and operation would help meet projected future electric demand, maintain electric transmission reliability standards, and facilitate the addition of new generation sources in the region by increasing the transfer of additional capacity from the North Dakota Export boundary to the Twin Cities metropolitan area. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Conversion of 432 to 812 acres of forested area would result in loss of scenic and timber resources. Soils would be disturbed during construction. Wetland conversion would range from 166 acres to 269 acres; and 2.3 to 5.2 miles of new corridors would affect wildlife habitat. Feasible ROWs would displace from zero to 25 residences. Route alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would cross the homeland of a minority community with long-term impacts to traditional cultural property. 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 River and Harbor Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 401 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 10-0022D, Volume 34, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100371, Final EIS--691 pages on CD-ROM, Appendices A-K: 970 pages and maps on CD-ROM, September 10, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Energy KW - Biologic Assessments KW - Cultural Resources KW - Electric Power KW - Environmental Justice KW - Forests KW - Indian Reservations KW - Transmission Lines KW - Vegetation KW - Visual Resources KW - Visual Resources Surveys KW - Wetlands KW - Chippewa National Forest KW - Minnesota KW - Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, Compliance KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - River and Harbor Act of 1899, Section 10 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130987?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-10&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.title=BEMIDJI+-+GRAND+RAPIDS+230+KV+TRANSMISSION+LINE+PROJECT%2C+BELTRAMI%2C+HUBBARD%2C+CASS%2C+AND+ITASCA+COUNTIES%2C+MINNESOTA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Utilities Program, Washington, District of Columbia; DA N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 10, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 26/89/189/191 SOUTH OF JACKSON, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - US 26/89/189/191 SOUTH OF JACKSON, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 873133671; 14642-0_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 7.2-mile stretch of US 26/89/189/191 south of Jackson in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The project would extend from between mile posts 148.6 at the north end and 141.4 at the south end. The Snake River parallels the right-of-way through much of the southern portion of the study corridor. This section of highway constitutes a critical link within the region for commuters from Pinedale, Bondurant, and Alpine to access jobs and consumer outlets in Jackson. The highway is also heavily used by commercial vehicles as well as winter and summer tourist travelers. Varying widths of roadway along the corridor currently result in bottlenecks, exacerbating congestion and increasing risk of accidents. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The five-lane rural build alternative would provide for four 12-foot through lanes with one continuous 12-foot left-turn lane; the roadway would be flanked by eight-foot shoulders. The combination alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a three-lane rural cross-section from mile post 141.4 to mile post 142.0 and a four-lane undivided cross-section from mile post 142.0 to mile post 142.5. The longest segment of this alternative, from mile post 142.5 to mile post 148.6, would consist of a five-lane rural highway. Both alternatives would require the replacement of a bridge crossing the Snake River floodplain. Both alternatives would also include a design element for construction of a separate pedestrian and bicycle pathway. Two pathway operations are considered. Under the preferred first option, the pathway would parallel the highway on the west side. Under the second option, the pathway would follow the same alignment from the northern study corridor terminus to Henry's Road South of Game Creek, where it would continue along Henry's Road to the point at which the road intersects with the highway near Horse Creek, at which point it would again share the same alignment as that of the first option. The typical pathway for each of the options would be 10 feet wide, but the pathway could be narrowed to eight feet in certain locations to minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Widening the highway and maintaining a similar roadway width throughout the corridor would enhance system continuity, increase safety, and improve travel times. Accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians would be improved. Anticipated residential and commercial growth in the Jackson area would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 15.8 to 17.3 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 1.9 acres of farmland and, under the five-lane rural alternative, would displace three acres of land within the Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust. Impervious surface would be increased from 31.4 acres to either 68.8 acres or 71.4 acres. Vegetation losses would include 59.3 to 63.2 acres of mountain big sagebrush, 41.7 acres of riparian forest, and 1.6 acres of Douglas fir. The Game Creek archaeological site would be impacted. Either alternative would impact 13 wetlands, displacing 0.94 acres permanently. Bridge piers could be placed within the 100-year floodplain and channel of the Snake River. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0090D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100370, Final EIS--825 pages, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, September 9, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FEIS-08-01 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Snake River KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133671?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - US 26/89/189/191 SOUTH OF JACKSON, TETON COUNTY, WYOMING. AN - 759301383; 14642 AB - PURPOSE: The improvement of a 7.2-mile stretch of US 26/89/189/191 south of Jackson in Teton County, Wyoming is proposed. The project would extend from between mile posts 148.6 at the north end and 141.4 at the south end. The Snake River parallels the right-of-way through much of the southern portion of the study corridor. This section of highway constitutes a critical link within the region for commuters from Pinedale, Bondurant, and Alpine to access jobs and consumer outlets in Jackson. The highway is also heavily used by commercial vehicles as well as winter and summer tourist travelers. Varying widths of roadway along the corridor currently result in bottlenecks, exacerbating congestion and increasing risk of accidents. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternative, are considered in this final EIS. The five-lane rural build alternative would provide for four 12-foot through lanes with one continuous 12-foot left-turn lane; the roadway would be flanked by eight-foot shoulders. The combination alternative, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for a three-lane rural cross-section from mile post 141.4 to mile post 142.0 and a four-lane undivided cross-section from mile post 142.0 to mile post 142.5. The longest segment of this alternative, from mile post 142.5 to mile post 148.6, would consist of a five-lane rural highway. Both alternatives would require the replacement of a bridge crossing the Snake River floodplain. Both alternatives would also include a design element for construction of a separate pedestrian and bicycle pathway. Two pathway operations are considered. Under the preferred first option, the pathway would parallel the highway on the west side. Under the second option, the pathway would follow the same alignment from the northern study corridor terminus to Henry's Road South of Game Creek, where it would continue along Henry's Road to the point at which the road intersects with the highway near Horse Creek, at which point it would again share the same alignment as that of the first option. The typical pathway for each of the options would be 10 feet wide, but the pathway could be narrowed to eight feet in certain locations to minimize impacts to sensitive natural resources. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Widening the highway and maintaining a similar roadway width throughout the corridor would enhance system continuity, increase safety, and improve travel times. Accommodations for bicyclists and pedestrians would be improved. Anticipated residential and commercial growth in the Jackson area would be supported. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Development of 15.8 to 17.3 acres of new rights-of-way would displace 1.9 acres of farmland and, under the five-lane rural alternative, would displace three acres of land within the Teton County Scenic Preserve Trust. Impervious surface would be increased from 31.4 acres to either 68.8 acres or 71.4 acres. Vegetation losses would include 59.3 to 63.2 acres of mountain big sagebrush, 41.7 acres of riparian forest, and 1.6 acres of Douglas fir. The Game Creek archaeological site would be impacted. Either alternative would impact 13 wetlands, displacing 0.94 acres permanently. Bridge piers could be placed within the 100-year floodplain and channel of the Snake River. 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.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 09-0090D, Volume 33, Number 1. JF - EPA number: 100370, Final EIS--825 pages, Technical Reports--CD-ROM, September 9, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Agency number: FHWA-FEIS-08-01 KW - Archaeological Sites KW - Bridges KW - Cultural Resources Surveys KW - Farmlands KW - Floodplains KW - Forests KW - Highways KW - Highway Structures KW - Scenic Areas KW - Section 4(f) Statements KW - Trails KW - Transportation KW - Vegetation KW - Wetlands KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Wildlife Surveys KW - Snake River KW - Wyoming KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits KW - National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Archaeological Sites UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759301383?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-09&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.title=US+26%2F89%2F189%2F191+SOUTH+OF+JACKSON%2C+TETON+COUNTY%2C+WYOMING.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Cheyenne, Wyoming; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: September 9, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. [Part 1 of 1] T2 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 873132011; 14646-4_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCore, Valley, and Phillips counties, Montana is proposed. Originally established in 1936 as the Fort Peck Game Range, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States and encompasses nearly 1.1 million acres in north-central Montana. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1969 and lies within the boundary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; these two Refuge System units are managed cohesively as one refuge. Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling 155,288 acres. More than 250,000 visitors participate in recreational activities every year. This draft CCP and EIS evaluates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained mostly through a fire suppression program with little use of prescribed fire. There would be continued emphasis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water development. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpretation and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Under Alternative B, the landscape would be managed in cooperation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife populations using both natural ecological processes such as fire and wildlife ungulate grazing, and responsible synthetic methods such as farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, but economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road would be closed. Alternative C would emphasize and promote maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and habitats would be protected with various management tools that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversifying public and economic opportunities. Under the proposed action (Alternative D), natural, dynamic, ecological processes would be balanced with active management to restore and maintain biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health. Once natural processes were restored, more passive approaches would be favored. The Fish and Wildlife Service would provide for quality wildlife-dependent public use and experiences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. About 23 miles of road would be closed. In addition to the wilderness elements in Alternative A, the Service would recommend expanding six of the proposed wilderness units by a total of 18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and Sheep Creek units, and eliminating three units for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East Hell Creek units. This would accommodate more public access in some areas and increase protection of wilderness values in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CCP would provide long-range guidance and management direction for the refuges programs. Implementation of the proposed action would benefit upland and riparian habitat, result in long-term benefits to wildlife, and generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire would have short-term negligible impacts on air quality, visual resources, and soils. Under all alternatives, grazing would continue to impact soils and riparian habitat in some areas. Refuge management changes would affect individual livestock permittees with impacts ranging from minor under alternatives A and C, to potentially major under alternatives B and D. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12996 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). JF - EPA number: 100374, 464 pages and maps, September 8, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Grazing KW - Hunting Management KW - Livestock KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge KW - Montana KW - UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge KW - UL Bend Wilderness KW - Executive Order 12996, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132011?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCORE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCORE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - CHARLES M. RUSSELL NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE AND UL BEND NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE COMPREHENSIVE CONSERVATION PLAN, FERGUS, PETROLEUM, GARFIELD, MCCORE, VALLEY, AND PHILLIPS COUNTIES, MONTANA. AN - 762465738; 14646 AB - PURPOSE: The development of a comprehensive conservation plan (CCP) for the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge and UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge, Fergus, Petroleum, Garfield, McCore, Valley, and Phillips counties, Montana is proposed. Originally established in 1936 as the Fort Peck Game Range, Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge is one of the largest refuges in the lower 48 States and encompasses nearly 1.1 million acres in north-central Montana. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge was established in 1969 and lies within the boundary of Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge; these two Refuge System units are managed cohesively as one refuge. Refuge habitat includes native prairie, forested coulees, river bottoms, and badlands. Wildlife includes Rocky Mountain elk, mule deer, white-tailed deer, pronghorn, Rocky Mountain bighorn sheep, sharp-tailed grouse, prairie dogs, and more than 236 species of birds. UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge contains the 20,819-acre UL Bend Wilderness, and Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge has 15 proposed wilderness units totaling 155,288 acres. More than 250,000 visitors participate in recreational activities every year. This draft CCP and EIS evaluates four alternative plans for managing wildlife, habitat, and wildlife-dependent public use. Under the No Action Alternative (Alternative A), few changes would occur in managing existing wildlife populations and habitat. The habitat regime would be maintained mostly through a fire suppression program with little use of prescribed fire. There would be continued emphasis on big game management, annual livestock grazing, fencing, invasive species control, and water development. Habitats would continue to be managed in 65 units, and residual cover would be measured. Wildlife-dependent public use would occur at current levels, which includes hunting, fishing, and limited interpretation and environmental education programs. About 670 miles of road would remain open. The Fish and Wildlife Service would continue to manage the UL Bend Wilderness and 155,288 acres of proposed wilderness in the Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge. Under Alternative B, the landscape would be managed in cooperation with partners to emphasize abundant wildlife populations using both natural ecological processes such as fire and wildlife ungulate grazing, and responsible synthetic methods such as farming practices or tree planting. Wildlife-dependent public use would be encouraged, but economic uses would be limited when they compete for habitat resources. About 106 miles of road would be closed. Alternative C would emphasize and promote maximum levels of compatible, wildlife-dependent public use and economic use. Wildlife populations and habitats would be protected with various management tools that would minimize damaging effects to wildlife and habitats while enhancing and diversifying public and economic opportunities. Under the proposed action (Alternative D), natural, dynamic, ecological processes would be balanced with active management to restore and maintain biological diversity, biological integrity, and environmental health. Once natural processes were restored, more passive approaches would be favored. The Fish and Wildlife Service would provide for quality wildlife-dependent public use and experiences and would limit economic uses when they were injurious to ecological processes. About 23 miles of road would be closed. In addition to the wilderness elements in Alternative A, the Service would recommend expanding six of the proposed wilderness units by a total of 18,559 acres in the Antelope Creek, Crooked Creek, Alkali Creek, Wagon Coulee, West Hell Creek, and Sheep Creek units, and eliminating three units for a reduction of 26,744 acres in the East Beauchamp Creek, West Beauchamp Creek, and East Hell Creek units. This would accommodate more public access in some areas and increase protection of wilderness values in other areas. POSITIVE IMPACTS: The CCP would provide long-range guidance and management direction for the refuges programs. Implementation of the proposed action would benefit upland and riparian habitat, result in long-term benefits to wildlife, and generate $2.1 million in local output and 25 additional jobs. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Prescribed fire would have short-term negligible impacts on air quality, visual resources, and soils. Under all alternatives, grazing would continue to impact soils and riparian habitat in some areas. Refuge management changes would affect individual livestock permittees with impacts ranging from minor under alternatives A and C, to potentially major under alternatives B and D. LEGAL MANDATES: Executive Order 12996 and National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-57). JF - EPA number: 100374, 464 pages and maps, September 8, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Parks, Refuges and Forests KW - Birds KW - Burning (Prescribed) KW - Conservation KW - Grazing KW - Hunting Management KW - Livestock KW - Preserves KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Management KW - Roads KW - Vegetation KW - Wilderness KW - Wilderness Management KW - Wildlife KW - Wildlife Habitat KW - Charles M. Russell National Wildlife Refuge KW - Montana KW - UL Bend National Wildlife Refuge KW - UL Bend Wilderness KW - Executive Order 12996, Compliance KW - National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, Compliance UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/762465738?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-08&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCORE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.title=CHARLES+M.+RUSSELL+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+AND+UL+BEND+NATIONAL+WILDLIFE+REFUGE+COMPREHENSIVE+CONSERVATION+PLAN%2C+FERGUS%2C+PETROLEUM%2C+GARFIELD%2C+MCCORE%2C+VALLEY%2C+AND+PHILLIPS+COUNTIES%2C+MONTANA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Lewistown, Montana; DOI N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 8, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 3 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876248326; 14633-1_0003 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. 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 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 multi-modal 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 which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile 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 $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 abstract of the original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 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 Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/876248326?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&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+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 2 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876245782; 14633-1_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. 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 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 multi-modal 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 which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile 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 $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 abstract of the original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 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 Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/876245782?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&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+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). [Part 1 of 3] T2 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 876245770; 14633-1_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. 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 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 multi-modal 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 which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile 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 $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 abstract of the original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 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 Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/876245770?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&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+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - I-70 MOUNTAIN CORRIDOR, GARFIELD, EAGLE, SUMMIT, CLEAR CREEK AND JEFFERSON COUNTIES, COLORADO (REVISED DRAFT PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT). AN - 759301375; 14633 AB - PURPOSE: The implementation of transportation improvements in the I-70 Mountain Corridor, from mile post 116 to mile post 260, between Glenwood Springs and C-470, Garfield, Eagle, Summit, Clear Creek and Jefferson counties, Colorado is proposed. Population and employment growth in the Corridor and in the Denver metropolitan area has noticeably increased traffic volumes on I-70 for more than 15 years. Recreational travelers currently experience substantial traffic delays on weekends and holidays on the eastern side of the corridor and the western side experiences work trip delays during the week. This project began in 2000 and this revised programmatic draft EIS replaces the draft programmatic EIS issued in 2004. A screening process led to the development of more than 200 alternative elements in seven categories: transportation management, localized highway improvements, fixed guideway transit, rubber tire transit, highway, alternate routes, and aviation. The alternative elements advanced combined to form the components of 21 action alternatives which are evaluated along with the No Action Alternative. 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 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 multi-modal 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 which would be made under the preferred alternative maximum program include both 55 mile 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 $1.95 billion to $20.16 billion. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Improvements would increase capacity, improve accessibility and mobility, and decrease congestion for travel demand, projected to occur in 2035 and 2050, to destinations along the I-70 Mountain Corridor as well as for interstate travel. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Transportation within the corridor, particularly automobile and truck traffic, would degrade air quality, displace key wildlife habitat, and impede and endanger wildlife movements. All action alternatives would have an impact on water quality, largely from contamination from vehicles which then is washed into nearby streams. Under the preferred alternative, the increase in runoff would range from 16 percent to 24 percent. Habitat for aquatic species and important streams would be disturbed. Historic resources identified in the I-70 Mountain Corridor include the Georgetown-Silver Plume National Historic Landmark District; and as many as 75 historic properties could be directly affected. All alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, would affect geologic hazards and need careful examination during Tier 2 processes to locate and design improvements to minimize the effects. The preferred alternative would affect between 65 and 90 recreation sites. 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 abstract of the original draft EIS, see 05-0396D, Volume 29, Number 3. JF - EPA number: 100361, Revised Draft EIS and Appendices--648 pages and maps on CD-ROM, Technical Reports--6 volumes on CD-ROM, September 2, 2010 PY - 2010 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 Districts KW - Historic Sites KW - Historic Sites Surveys KW - Impact Assessment Methodology KW - Rapid Transit Systems KW - Recreation Resources KW - Recreation Resources Surveys KW - Water Quality KW - Wildlife Habitat 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/759301375?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-09-02&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+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.title=I-70+MOUNTAIN+CORRIDOR%2C+GARFIELD%2C+EAGLE%2C+SUMMIT%2C+CLEAR+CREEK+AND+JEFFERSON+COUNTIES%2C+COLORADO+%28REVISED+DRAFT+PROGRAMMATIC+ENVIRONMENTAL+IMPACT+STATEMENT%29.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Lakewood, Colorado; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: September 2, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Wave overtopping of levees and overwash of dunes AN - 904504159; 610668-8 JF - Journal of Coastal Research AU - Kobayashi, Nobuhisa AU - Farhadzadeh, Ali AU - Melby, Jeffrey AU - Johnson, Bradley AU - Gravens, Mark Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - September 2010 SP - 888 EP - 900 PB - Coastal Education and Research Foundation (CERF), Fort Lauderdale, FL VL - 26 IS - 5 SN - 0749-0208, 0749-0208 KW - eolian features KW - shore features KW - dunes KW - numerical models KW - geologic hazards KW - sediment transport KW - analog simulation KW - physical models KW - flume studies KW - levees KW - transport KW - digital simulation KW - natural hazards KW - floods KW - coastal environment KW - coastal dunes KW - 30:Engineering geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/904504159?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefinprocess&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.atitle=Wave+overtopping+of+levees+and+overwash+of+dunes&rft.au=Kobayashi%2C+Nobuhisa%3BFarhadzadeh%2C+Ali%3BMelby%2C+Jeffrey%3BJohnson%2C+Bradley%3BGravens%2C+Mark&rft.aulast=Kobayashi&rft.aufirst=Nobuhisa&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=26&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=888&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Journal+of+Coastal+Research&rft.issn=07490208&rft_id=info:doi/10.2112%2FJCOASTRES-D-09-00034.1 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef in Process, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. After editing and indexing, this record will be added to Georef. N1 - Number of references - 25 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 1 table N1 - Last updated - 2012-07-20 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - analog simulation; coastal dunes; coastal environment; digital simulation; dunes; eolian features; floods; flume studies; geologic hazards; levees; natural hazards; numerical models; physical models; sediment transport; shore features; transport DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-09-00034.1 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Interactions of biological and herbicidal management of Melaleuca quinquenervia with fire: Consequences for ecosystem services AN - 877596421; 13715198 AB - Exotic plant species invasion can alter ecosystem nutrient dynamics and natural disturbance patterns. The Australian tree Melaleuca quinquenervia has extensively invaded the Florida Everglades and is currently being suppressed using mechanical, herbicidal, and biological control management strategies. While these methods have been evaluated based on reductions in density and abundance of the target weed, other factors should be considered including consequences for ecosystem nutrient storages and interactions with natural disturbances such as fire. We hypothesized that the choice of management tactics, namely herbicidal or biological control, would differentially influence the quantity and availability of soil nutrients before and after a seasonal fire. The management of M. quinquenervia with a herbicide reduced the above- and belowground storage of nutrients both before and after a fire compared to a non-invaded area, while biological control increased storage. There were no differences in nitrogen availability between sites (non-invaded, herbicide, biological control) in the 0-5 cm or 5-15 cm soil depths before or after the fire. Pre-fire phosphorus availability was highest in the non-invaded site in the 0-5 cm soil depth and in the biological control site in the 5-15 cm soil depth. However, phosphorus availability was highest at both depths in the herbicide site post-fire. Biological control of M. quinquenervia using insect herbivores has proven to be effective at controlling plant growth and reproduction. The results of this study suggest that this method may have less of an impact on nutrient storage and cycling than herbicides. JF - Biological Control AU - Martin, Melissa R AU - Tipping, Philip W AU - Reddy, K R AU - Daroub, Samira H AU - Roberts, Katrina M AD - University of Florida, Department of Soil and Water Science, 106 Newell Hall, P.O. Box 110510, Gainesville, Florida 32611, USA, Melissa.R.Martin@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - Sep 2010 SP - 307 EP - 315 PB - Elsevier Science, The Boulevard Kidlington Oxford OX5 1GB UK VL - 54 IS - 3 SN - 1049-9644, 1049-9644 KW - Microbiology Abstracts A: Industrial & Applied Microbiology KW - Abundance KW - Biological control KW - Melaleuca quinquenervia KW - A:01370 UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/877596421?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Amicrobiologya&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Biological+Control&rft.atitle=Interactions+of+biological+and+herbicidal+management+of+Melaleuca+quinquenervia+with+fire%3A+Consequences+for+ecosystem+services&rft.au=Martin%2C+Melissa+R%3BTipping%2C+Philip+W%3BReddy%2C+K+R%3BDaroub%2C+Samira+H%3BRoberts%2C+Katrina+M&rft.aulast=Martin&rft.aufirst=Melissa&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=54&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=307&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Biological+Control&rft.issn=10499644&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016%2Fj.biocontrol.2010.06.002 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2014-02-21 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Biological control; Melaleuca quinquenervia DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocontrol.2010.06.002 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Evaluation of sorbent amendments for in situ remediation of metal-contaminated sediments AN - 853217158; 2011-019371 AB - The present study evaluated sorbent amendments for in situ remediation of sediments contaminated with two divalent metals. A literature review screening was performed to identify low-cost natural mineral-based metal sorbents and high-performance commercial sorbents that were carried forward into laboratory experiments. Aqueous phase metal sorptivity of the selected sorbents was evaluated because dissolved metals in sediment porewater constitute an important route of exposure to benthic organisms. Based on pH-edge sorption test results, natural sorbents were eliminated due to inferior performance. The potential as in situ sediment amendment was explored by comparing the sorption properties of the engineered amendments in freshwater and saltwater (10 PPT salinity estuarine water) matrices. Self-assembled monolayers on mesoporous supports with thiols (Thiol-SAMMS (super TM) ) and a titanosilicate mineral (ATS (super TM) ) demonstrated the highest sorption capacity for cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb), respectively. Sequential extraction tests conducted after mixing engineered sorbents with contaminated sediment demonstrated transfer of metal contaminants from a weakly bound state to a more strongly bound state. Biouptake of Cd in a freshwater oligochaete was reduced by 98% after 5-d contact of sediment with 4% Thiol-SAMMS and sorbed Cd was not bioavailable. While treatment with ATS reduced the small easily extractable portion of Pb in the sediment, the change in biouptake of Pb was not significant because most of the native lead was strongly bound. The selected sorbents added to sediments at a dose of 5% were mostly nontoxic to a range of sensitive freshwater and estuarine benthic organisms. Metal sorbent amendments in conjunction with activated carbon have the potential to simultaneously reduce metal and hydrophobic contaminant bioavailability in sediments. JF - Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry AU - Kwon, Seokjoon AU - Thomas, Jeff AU - Reed, Brian E AU - Levine, Laura AU - Magar, Victor S AU - Farrar, Daniel AU - Bridges, Todd S AU - Ghosh, Upal Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - September 2010 SP - 1883 EP - 1892 PB - Wiley InterScience on behalf of SETAC (Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry), Pensacola, FL VL - 29 IS - 9 SN - 0730-7268, 0730-7268 KW - United States KW - sorption KW - Chironomidae KW - benthic taxa KW - waste water KW - Neoptera KW - lead KW - fresh water KW - ecosystems KW - bioavailability KW - Pterygota KW - remediation KW - bioaccumulation KW - laboratory studies KW - mineral composition KW - toxicity KW - decontamination KW - water treatment KW - sequential extraction KW - sediments KW - cadmium KW - Invertebrata KW - Endopterygota KW - estuarine environment KW - hydrophobic materials KW - heavy metals KW - Insecta KW - experimental studies KW - in situ KW - pollutants KW - pollution KW - bioassays KW - indicators KW - Hyalella azteca KW - Anacostia River basin KW - District of Columbia KW - physical properties KW - Arthropoda KW - isotherms KW - metals KW - Mandibulata KW - testing KW - Diptera KW - aquatic environment KW - 22:Environmental geology UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/853217158?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/ProQ%3Ageorefmodule&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.jtitle=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.atitle=Evaluation+of+sorbent+amendments+for+in+situ+remediation+of+metal-contaminated+sediments&rft.au=Kwon%2C+Seokjoon%3BThomas%2C+Jeff%3BReed%2C+Brian+E%3BLevine%2C+Laura%3BMagar%2C+Victor+S%3BFarrar%2C+Daniel%3BBridges%2C+Todd+S%3BGhosh%2C+Upal&rft.aulast=Kwon&rft.aufirst=Seokjoon&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=29&rft.issue=9&rft.spage=1883&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Toxicology+and+Chemistry&rft.issn=07307268&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002%2Fetc.249 L2 - http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/122563640/home?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 LA - English DB - GeoRef N1 - Copyright - GeoRef, Copyright 2012, American Geosciences Institute. N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Number of references - 40 N1 - PubXState - FL N1 - Document feature - illus. incl. 2 tables N1 - Last updated - 2012-06-07 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Anacostia River basin; aquatic environment; Arthropoda; benthic taxa; bioaccumulation; bioassays; bioavailability; cadmium; Chironomidae; decontamination; Diptera; District of Columbia; ecosystems; Endopterygota; estuarine environment; experimental studies; fresh water; heavy metals; Hyalella azteca; hydrophobic materials; in situ; indicators; Insecta; Invertebrata; isotherms; laboratory studies; lead; Mandibulata; metals; mineral composition; Neoptera; physical properties; pollutants; pollution; Pterygota; remediation; sediments; sequential extraction; sorption; testing; toxicity; United States; waste water; water treatment DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/etc.249 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Kleptoparasitism of a Red-Cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis) Nest Cavity by a Red-Bellied Woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) AN - 851468923; 14072512 AB - We report the kleptoparasitism of a Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded Woodpecker) cavity by a Melanerpes carolinus (Red-bellied Woodpecker). We believe this is the first video documenting kleptoparasitism of a Red-cockaded Woodpecker nest by a male Red-bellied Woodpecker in which both a nestling and an attending adult Red-cockaded Woodpecker adult were forcibly ejected. The Red-bellied Woodpecker was resolute in its attempt to usurp the nest, reaching into the cavity over 2000 times in an attempt to evict the cavity occupants. The male Red-bellied Woodpecker and his mate took over the cavity soon after. Adult Red-cockaded Woodpeckers continued to visit their nest cavity during diurnal hours for 2 days post-kleptoparasitism. It is important that resource managers incorporate proactive management techniques to lessen the impact of interspecific competition for cavities, especially in smaller or fragmented Red-cockaded Woodpecker populations. JF - Southeastern Naturalist AU - Delaney, David K AU - Carlile, Lawrence D Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - Sep 2010 SP - 624 EP - 628 PB - Humboldt Field Research Institute, PO Box 9 Steuben ME 04680-0009 USA VL - 9 IS - 3 SN - 1528-7092, 1528-7092 KW - Ecology Abstracts; Sustainability Science Abstracts KW - Diurnal variations KW - Cavities KW - Picoides borealis KW - nests KW - Kleptoparasitism KW - Competition KW - Nests KW - Melanerpes carolinus KW - competition KW - M3 1010:Issues in Sustainable Development KW - D 04040:Ecosystem and Ecology Studies UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/851468923?accountid=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=Kleptoparasitism+of+a+Red-Cockaded+Woodpecker+%28Picoides+borealis%29+Nest+Cavity+by+a+Red-Bellied+Woodpecker+%28Melanerpes+carolinus%29&rft.au=Delaney%2C+David+K%3BCarlile%2C+Lawrence+D&rft.aulast=Delaney&rft.aufirst=David&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=9&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=624&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Southeastern+Naturalist&rft.issn=15287092&rft_id=info:doi/10.1656%2F058.009.0318 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-02-01 N1 - Number of references - 21 N1 - Last updated - 2014-11-26 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Cavities; Competition; Kleptoparasitism; Nests; Diurnal variations; nests; competition; Picoides borealis; Melanerpes carolinus DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1656/058.009.0318 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Solid-Phase Tungsten Speciation by Differential Digestion AN - 831197782; 13897784 AB - In this study, a series of chemical extractions was used as a low-level, solid-phase tungsten speciation technique and correlated with XRD results. In addition to qualitative speciation, these efforts, which utilize the varying solubilities of WO-24, WO3, and W, provide statistically representative quantitative data at environmentally relevant levels. The selective nature of the digestion procedures allowed calculation of each individual species concentration by subtracting recoveries of the composite matrices from the total tungsten determinations. The results of this method exceed the sensitivity limitations of non-destructive techniques and may provide a valuable tool in environmental forensic investigations regarding the source of tungsten contamination. JF - Environmental Forensics AU - Griggs, Christopher AU - Larson, Steven AU - Liu, Goujing AU - Felt, Deborah AU - Martin, WAndy AU - Thompson, Michelle AU - Nestler, Catherine AD - Environmental Laboratory, United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - Sep 2010 SP - 275 EP - 281 PB - Taylor & Francis Group Ltd., 2 Park Square Oxford OX14 4RN UK VL - 11 IS - 3 SN - 1527-5922, 1527-5922 KW - Environmental Engineering Abstracts (EN); CSA / ASCE Civil Engineering Abstracts (CE) UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/831197782?accountid=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=Solid-Phase+Tungsten+Speciation+by+Differential+Digestion&rft.au=Griggs%2C+Christopher%3BLarson%2C+Steven%3BLiu%2C+Goujing%3BFelt%2C+Deborah%3BMartin%2C+WAndy%3BThompson%2C+Michelle%3BNestler%2C+Catherine&rft.aulast=Griggs&rft.aufirst=Christopher&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=11&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=275&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Environmental+Forensics&rft.issn=15275922&rft_id=info:doi/10.1080%2F15275922.2010.494966 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2011-01-01 N1 - Last updated - 2011-11-14 DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15275922.2010.494966 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Benthic Bioaccumulation and Bioavailability of Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers from Surficial Lake Ontario Sediments Near Rochester, New York, USA AN - 759321377; 13756710 AB - Polybrominated diphenyl ethers in Lake Ontario watershed sediments were assessed for benthic bioavailability through the use of biota-sediment accumulation factors. Sediments from lake and Rochester Harbor (lower Genesee River) areas were investigated. Congeners 47, 66, 85, 99 and 100 were detected in tissues of the oligochaete Lumbriculus variegatus. Biota-sediment accumulation factors ranged from 3.95 (congener 154) to 19.5 (congener 28) and were higher at the Lake Ontario area. The lower biota-sediment accumulation factors for the Rochester Harbor sediment may result from a higher fraction of black carbon generally expected in highly urbanized rivers. Degree of bromination may reduce bioavailability. JF - Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology AU - Lotufo, G R AU - Pickard, S W AD - US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, 3909 Halls Ferry Road, Vicksburg, MS 39180, USA, guilherme.lotufo@usace.army.mil Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - September 2010 SP - 348 EP - 351 PB - Springer-Verlag, 175 Fifth Ave. New York NY 10010 United States of America VL - 85 IS - 3 SN - 0007-4861, 0007-4861 KW - ASFA 3: Aquatic Pollution & Environmental Quality; Environment Abstracts; Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; Pollution Abstracts; Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts; Toxicology Abstracts KW - Oligochaetes KW - Watersheds KW - Bioavailability KW - Lakes KW - black carbon KW - Congeners KW - Ethers KW - Toxicology KW - Rivers KW - Sediment chemistry KW - Lake sediment pollution KW - polybrominated diphenyl ethers KW - Water Pollution Effects KW - Fluvial Sediments KW - Pollution effects KW - USA, New York, Rochester KW - USA, New York, Genesee R. KW - USA, Ontario L. KW - Oligochaeta KW - Polybrominated diphenyl ethers KW - Carbon KW - Bromination KW - Sediments KW - USA, New York KW - Lumbriculus variegatus KW - Bioaccumulation KW - Harbors KW - M2 556.55:Lakes, Reservoirs, Ponds (556.55) KW - Q5 08503:Characteristics, behavior and fate KW - P 1000:MARINE POLLUTION KW - SW 3030:Effects of pollution KW - AQ 00008:Effects of Pollution KW - X 24360:Metals KW - ENA 02:Toxicology & Environmental Safety UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/759321377?accountid=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=Bulletin+of+Environmental+Contamination+and+Toxicology&rft.atitle=Benthic+Bioaccumulation+and+Bioavailability+of+Polybrominated+Diphenyl+Ethers+from+Surficial+Lake+Ontario+Sediments+Near+Rochester%2C+New+York%2C+USA&rft.au=Lotufo%2C+G+R%3BPickard%2C+S+W&rft.aulast=Lotufo&rft.aufirst=G&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=85&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=348&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Bulletin+of+Environmental+Contamination+and+Toxicology&rft.issn=00074861&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs00128-010-0088-8 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - Last updated - 2016-03-17 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Sediment chemistry; Bioavailability; Bioaccumulation; Pollution effects; Watersheds; Toxicology; Sediments; Rivers; polybrominated diphenyl ethers; Lakes; black carbon; Bromination; Congeners; Lake sediment pollution; Polybrominated diphenyl ethers; Oligochaetes; Carbon; Fluvial Sediments; Water Pollution Effects; Ethers; Harbors; Lumbriculus variegatus; Oligochaeta; USA, New York, Rochester; USA, Ontario L.; USA, New York, Genesee R.; USA, New York DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00128-010-0088-8 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Reductive Transformation of 2,4-Dinitrotoluene: Roles of Iron and Natural Organic Matter AN - 744627390; 13189821 AB - This study investigated the effects of redox-active and iron-coordinating functional groups within natural organic matter (NOM) on the electron transfer interactions between Fe(II) and 2,4-dinitrotoluene (2,4-DNT), an energetic residue often encountered in aqueous environments as a propellant component and impurities in 2,4,6-trinitrotoluene (TNT). Experiments were first conducted in homogeneous phases as a function of pH in the presence of ligands that (1) complex iron (e.g., citric acid, oxalic acid), (2) complex and reduce iron (e.g., caffeic acid, ascorbic acid), and (3) humic substances with known carboxyl content and electron transfer capacity. Then, effects of these NOM components on Fe(II) reactivity in heterogeneous media were investigated by introducing goethite. Our results indicate complex catalytic and inhibitory effects of NOM components on the reaction between Fe(II) and 2,4-DNT, depending upon the ability of NOM component to (1) reduce dissolved and particulate Fe(III) (e.g., ascorbic acid), (2) form kinetically labile dissolved Fe(II) reductants (e.g., tiron and caffeic acid), and (3) produce surface-associated Fe(II) species that are accessible to 2,4-DNT. JF - Aquatic Geochemistry AU - Uchimiya, Minori AD - Environmental Laboratory, US Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, Vicksburg, MS, 39180, USA, sophie.uchimiya@ars.usda.gov Y1 - 2010/09// PY - 2010 DA - Sep 2010 SP - 547 EP - 562 PB - Springer-Verlag, Tiergartenstrasse 17 Heidelberg 69121 Germany VL - 16 IS - 4 SN - 1380-6165, 1380-6165 KW - Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources; Water Resources Abstracts KW - Organic matter KW - Geochemistry KW - Hydrogen Ion Concentration KW - Goethite KW - Vitamin C KW - Organic Matter KW - Acids KW - Capacity KW - Iron KW - Ligands KW - SW 0880:Chemical processes KW - Q2 09185:Organic compounds KW - AQ 00003:Monitoring and Analysis of Water and Wastes UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/744627390?accountid=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=Aquatic+Geochemistry&rft.atitle=Reductive+Transformation+of+2%2C4-Dinitrotoluene%3A+Roles+of+Iron+and+Natural+Organic+Matter&rft.au=Uchimiya%2C+Minori&rft.aulast=Uchimiya&rft.aufirst=Minori&rft.date=2010-09-01&rft.volume=16&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=547&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=&rft.title=Aquatic+Geochemistry&rft.issn=13806165&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007%2Fs10498-009-9085-0 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-07-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-09-03 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Vitamin C; Organic matter; Iron; Goethite; Ligands; Organic Matter; Acids; Geochemistry; Hydrogen Ion Concentration; Capacity DO - http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10498-009-9085-0 ER - TY - JOUR T1 - Environmental impacts on coastal structures with a case evaluation of armor stone protection at Keweenaw Waterway, USA AN - 807280513; 13850771 JF - WIT Transactions on Engineering Sciences AU - Zakikhani, M AU - Harrelson, D W AU - Tom, J G AU - Kissane, JA AU - Allis, M K AU - Kolber, JE AD - The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, USA Y1 - 2010/08/26/ PY - 2010 DA - 2010 Aug 26 SP - 417 EP - 426 PB - WIT Press, Ashurst Lodge Ashurst Southampton SO40 7AA UK, [mailto:sunrise@witpress.com] VL - 1 SN - 1746-4471, 1746-4471 KW - Water Resources Abstracts; Aqualine Abstracts; ASFA 2: Ocean Technology Policy & Non-Living Resources KW - Environmental Effects KW - Coastal structures KW - Environmental impact KW - Environmental Protection KW - Fluid Mechanics KW - Evaluation KW - Fluid mechanics KW - USA KW - Waterways KW - Structural Engineering KW - Environment management KW - AQ 00001:Water Resources and Supplies KW - Q2 09169:Fluid mechanics KW - SW 6020:Hydraulics UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/807280513?accountid=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=conference&rft.jtitle=WIT+Transactions+on+Engineering+Sciences&rft.atitle=Environmental+impacts+on+coastal+structures+with+a+case+evaluation+of+armor+stone+protection+at+Keweenaw+Waterway%2C+USA&rft.au=Zakikhani%2C+M%3BHarrelson%2C+D+W%3BTom%2C+J+G%3BKissane%2C+JA%3BAllis%2C+M+K%3BKolber%2C+JE&rft.aulast=Zakikhani&rft.aufirst=M&rft.date=2010-08-26&rft.volume=1&rft.issue=&rft.spage=417&rft.isbn=9781845644765&rft.btitle=&rft.title=WIT+Transactions+on+Engineering+Sciences&rft.issn=17464471&rft_id=info:doi/ L2 - http://library.witpress.com/viewproceedings.asp?pcode=AFM10 LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Date revised - 2010-11-01 N1 - Last updated - 2015-08-05 N1 - SubjectsTermNotLitGenreText - Fluid mechanics; Coastal structures; Environmental impact; Environment management; Environmental Effects; Evaluation; Environmental Protection; Waterways; Structural Engineering; Fluid Mechanics; USA ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 80/INTERSTATE 680/STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 2 of 2] T2 - INTERSTATE 80/INTERSTATE 680/STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132829; 14614-2_0002 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of roadway widening and interchange improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80)/Interstate 680 (I-680)/State Route 12 (SR 12) in the vicinity of the city of Fairfield, Solano County, California is proposed. The existing I-80/I-680/SR 12 interchange complex was constructed approximately 40 years ago, and current traffic demands result in congestion, delays, and unacceptable levels of service. The project area covers 13 miles encompassing all three highways and the proposed action involves improvements on a 4.5-mile-long segment of I-80 between Red Top Road and Abernathy Road, an approximate 3.5-mile-long segment of I-680 between Gold Hill Road and I-80, a 2.0-mile-long segment of SR 12 West (SR 12W) between 0.5 mile west of Red Top Road and I-80, and a 2.5-mile-long segment of SR 12 East (SR 12E) between I-80 and Main Street in Suisun City. The alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS include a No Build Alternative and two full build alternatives (Alternative B and Alternative C), each with a corresponding fundable the first phase (Alternative B, Phase 1 and Alternative C, Phase 1). Alternatives B and C would address comprehensive improvements to the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange; the widening of I-680 and I-80; and the relocation, upgrade, and expansion of the westbound truck scales on I-80. Alternatives B and C differ primarily in the location of the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange improvements and the improvements on SR 12E. Under Alternative B, the I-80/I-680 and I-80/SR 12W interchanges would be improved in place and a single interchange would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Under Alternative C, I-680 would be realigned to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange, and two interchanges would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Alternative B, Phase 1 would improve the I-80/Green Valley Road, I-80/I-680, I-80/Suisun Valley Road and the SR 12E/Beck Avenue interchanges. Alternative C, Phase 1 would realign I-680 to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange and provide direct connections between all highways except eastbound SR 12W and southbound I-680. Red Top Road would be extended to meet Business Center Drive and interchanges at SR 12W/Red Top Road, I-80/Red Top Road, I-80/Green Valley Road, and I-680/Red Top Road would be constructed or improved. A third lane would be added to SR 12 East from west of Chadbourne Road Undercrossing to the Webster Street exit. While the fundable first phases of the alternatives would not address all project needs, they would reduce congestion and cut-through traffic on local roads, and improve safety conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ease traffic congestion through the I-80/I-680/SR12 interchange complex, encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes and ridesharing, accommodate projected growth, and improve safety. The amount of cut-through traffic on local roads would be reduced and inspection and enforcement at truck scales would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require conversion of approximately 200 acres of farmland. Construction activities would create potential for sediment or pollutants to enter waterways. The full build of Alternative B would displace one residence and require 201 partial and 27 full acquisitions of businesses. The full build of Alternative C would displace one residence and require 144 partial and 32 full acquisitions of businesses. 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: 100342, Volume 1 --876 pages and maps, Volume 2--231 oversize maps, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 2 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions 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/873132829?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 80/INTERSTATE 680/STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. [Part 1 of 2] T2 - INTERSTATE 80/INTERSTATE 680/STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 873132348; 14614-2_0001 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of roadway widening and interchange improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80)/Interstate 680 (I-680)/State Route 12 (SR 12) in the vicinity of the city of Fairfield, Solano County, California is proposed. The existing I-80/I-680/SR 12 interchange complex was constructed approximately 40 years ago, and current traffic demands result in congestion, delays, and unacceptable levels of service. The project area covers 13 miles encompassing all three highways and the proposed action involves improvements on a 4.5-mile-long segment of I-80 between Red Top Road and Abernathy Road, an approximate 3.5-mile-long segment of I-680 between Gold Hill Road and I-80, a 2.0-mile-long segment of SR 12 West (SR 12W) between 0.5 mile west of Red Top Road and I-80, and a 2.5-mile-long segment of SR 12 East (SR 12E) between I-80 and Main Street in Suisun City. The alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS include a No Build Alternative and two full build alternatives (Alternative B and Alternative C), each with a corresponding fundable the first phase (Alternative B, Phase 1 and Alternative C, Phase 1). Alternatives B and C would address comprehensive improvements to the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange; the widening of I-680 and I-80; and the relocation, upgrade, and expansion of the westbound truck scales on I-80. Alternatives B and C differ primarily in the location of the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange improvements and the improvements on SR 12E. Under Alternative B, the I-80/I-680 and I-80/SR 12W interchanges would be improved in place and a single interchange would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Under Alternative C, I-680 would be realigned to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange, and two interchanges would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Alternative B, Phase 1 would improve the I-80/Green Valley Road, I-80/I-680, I-80/Suisun Valley Road and the SR 12E/Beck Avenue interchanges. Alternative C, Phase 1 would realign I-680 to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange and provide direct connections between all highways except eastbound SR 12W and southbound I-680. Red Top Road would be extended to meet Business Center Drive and interchanges at SR 12W/Red Top Road, I-80/Red Top Road, I-80/Green Valley Road, and I-680/Red Top Road would be constructed or improved. A third lane would be added to SR 12 East from west of Chadbourne Road Undercrossing to the Webster Street exit. While the fundable first phases of the alternatives would not address all project needs, they would reduce congestion and cut-through traffic on local roads, and improve safety conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ease traffic congestion through the I-80/I-680/SR12 interchange complex, encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes and ridesharing, accommodate projected growth, and improve safety. The amount of cut-through traffic on local roads would be reduced and inspection and enforcement at truck scales would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require conversion of approximately 200 acres of farmland. Construction activities would create potential for sediment or pollutants to enter waterways. The full build of Alternative B would displace one residence and require 201 partial and 27 full acquisitions of businesses. The full build of Alternative C would displace one residence and require 144 partial and 32 full acquisitions of businesses. 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: 100342, Volume 1 --876 pages and maps, Volume 2--231 oversize maps, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 1 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions 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/873132348?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - INTERSTATE 80/INTERSTATE 680/STATE ROUTE 12 INTERCHANGE PROJECT, SOLANO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA. AN - 758977842; 14614 AB - PURPOSE: The construction of roadway widening and interchange improvements along Interstate 80 (I-80)/Interstate 680 (I-680)/State Route 12 (SR 12) in the vicinity of the city of Fairfield, Solano County, California is proposed. The existing I-80/I-680/SR 12 interchange complex was constructed approximately 40 years ago, and current traffic demands result in congestion, delays, and unacceptable levels of service. The project area covers 13 miles encompassing all three highways and the proposed action involves improvements on a 4.5-mile-long segment of I-80 between Red Top Road and Abernathy Road, an approximate 3.5-mile-long segment of I-680 between Gold Hill Road and I-80, a 2.0-mile-long segment of SR 12 West (SR 12W) between 0.5 mile west of Red Top Road and I-80, and a 2.5-mile-long segment of SR 12 East (SR 12E) between I-80 and Main Street in Suisun City. The alternatives analyzed in this draft EIS include a No Build Alternative and two full build alternatives (Alternative B and Alternative C), each with a corresponding fundable the first phase (Alternative B, Phase 1 and Alternative C, Phase 1). Alternatives B and C would address comprehensive improvements to the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange; the widening of I-680 and I-80; and the relocation, upgrade, and expansion of the westbound truck scales on I-80. Alternatives B and C differ primarily in the location of the I-80/I-680/SR 12W interchange improvements and the improvements on SR 12E. Under Alternative B, the I-80/I-680 and I-80/SR 12W interchanges would be improved in place and a single interchange would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Under Alternative C, I-680 would be realigned to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange, and two interchanges would be constructed on SR 12E to serve Beck Avenue and Pennsylvania Avenue. Alternative B, Phase 1 would improve the I-80/Green Valley Road, I-80/I-680, I-80/Suisun Valley Road and the SR 12E/Beck Avenue interchanges. Alternative C, Phase 1 would realign I-680 to the west to connect with the I-80/SR 12W interchange and provide direct connections between all highways except eastbound SR 12W and southbound I-680. Red Top Road would be extended to meet Business Center Drive and interchanges at SR 12W/Red Top Road, I-80/Red Top Road, I-80/Green Valley Road, and I-680/Red Top Road would be constructed or improved. A third lane would be added to SR 12 East from west of Chadbourne Road Undercrossing to the Webster Street exit. While the fundable first phases of the alternatives would not address all project needs, they would reduce congestion and cut-through traffic on local roads, and improve safety conditions. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would ease traffic congestion through the I-80/I-680/SR12 interchange complex, encourage the use of high-occupancy vehicle lanes and ridesharing, accommodate projected growth, and improve safety. The amount of cut-through traffic on local roads would be reduced and inspection and enforcement at truck scales would be facilitated. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation would require conversion of approximately 200 acres of farmland. Construction activities would create potential for sediment or pollutants to enter waterways. The full build of Alternative B would displace one residence and require 201 partial and 27 full acquisitions of businesses. The full build of Alternative C would displace one residence and require 144 partial and 32 full acquisitions of businesses. 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: 100342, Volume 1 --876 pages and maps, Volume 2--231 oversize maps, August 25, 2010 PY - 2010 KW - Roads and Railroads KW - Farmlands KW - Land Acquisitions KW - Highway Structures KW - Highways KW - Relocations-Property Acquisitions 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/758977842?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Digests&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-25&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.title=INTERSTATE+80%2FINTERSTATE+680%2FSTATE+ROUTE+12+INTERCHANGE+PROJECT%2C+SOLANO+COUNTY%2C+CALIFORNIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, District of Columbia; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Draft. Preparation date: August 25, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 163 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133922; 14588-4_0163 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 163 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133922?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 152 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133915; 14588-4_0152 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 152 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133915?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 49 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133608; 14588-4_0049 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 49 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133608?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 40 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133600; 14588-4_0040 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 40 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133600?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 38 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133593; 14588-4_0038 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 38 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133593?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 30 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133589; 14588-4_0030 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 30 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133589?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 21 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133577; 14588-4_0021 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 21 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133577?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 158 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133222; 14588-4_0158 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 158 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 78 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133218; 14588-4_0078 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 78 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133218?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 154 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133197; 14588-4_0154 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 154 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133197?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 153 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133185; 14588-4_0153 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 153 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 118 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133128; 14588-4_0118 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 118 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133128?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 110 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133062; 14588-4_0110 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 110 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133062?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 102 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873133006; 14588-4_0102 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 102 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873133006?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 71 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132753; 14588-4_0071 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 71 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132753?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 50 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132668; 14588-4_0050 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 50 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132668?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 22 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132664; 14588-4_0022 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 22 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132664?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 12 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132623; 14588-4_0012 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 12 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132623?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 108 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132368; 14588-4_0108 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 108 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132368?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 151 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132305; 14588-4_0151 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 151 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 150 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132293; 14588-4_0150 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 150 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132293?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 66 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132272; 14588-4_0066 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 66 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132272?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 144 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132222; 14588-4_0144 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 144 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132222?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 140 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132214; 14588-4_0140 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 140 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132214?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 129 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132203; 14588-4_0129 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 129 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132203?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 128 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132194; 14588-4_0128 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 128 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132194?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 123 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132185; 14588-4_0123 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 123 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132185?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 70 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132072; 14588-4_0070 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 70 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132072?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 62 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873132047; 14588-4_0062 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 62 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873132047?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 32 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131920; 14588-4_0032 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 32 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131920?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 24 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131894; 14588-4_0024 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 24 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131894?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 17 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131865; 14588-4_0017 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 17 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131865?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 16 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131850; 14588-4_0016 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 16 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131850?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 112 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131808; 14588-4_0112 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 112 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131808?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 80 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131121; 14588-4_0080 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 80 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131121?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 79 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873131101; 14588-4_0079 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 79 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873131101?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 93 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130354; 14588-4_0093 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 93 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130354?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 97 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130316; 14588-4_0097 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 97 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130316?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 91 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130305; 14588-4_0091 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 91 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130305?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 83 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130282; 14588-4_0083 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 83 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130282?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 90 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130245; 14588-4_0090 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 90 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130245?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 89 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130198; 14588-4_0089 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 89 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130198?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 54 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873130054; 14588-4_0054 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 54 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873130054?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 55 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129835; 14588-4_0055 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 55 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129835?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 35 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129823; 14588-4_0035 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 35 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129823?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 8 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129743; 14588-4_0008 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 8 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129743?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 53 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873129221; 14588-4_0053 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 53 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873129221?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 76 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128211; 14588-4_0076 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 76 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128211?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER - TY - RPRT T1 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. [Part 75 of 164] T2 - PHILADELPHIA INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT CAPACITY ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM, PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA. AN - 873128191; 14588-4_0075 AB - PURPOSE: Capacity enhancements at Philadelphia International Airport (PIA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania are proposed to accommodate current and future aviation demand in the Philadelphia Metropolitan Area under all weather conditions. Delays at PIA are caused by the airfield's configuration and the fleet mix served by the airport. Analyses of the forecast passenger and aircraft activity levels indicate that the numbers and durations of delayed operations at PIA will continue to increase from their current average levels of nearly 10 minutes per operation to nearly 20 minutes per operation in 2025. The Federal Aviation Administration considers an airport with an average delay in excess of five minutes to be congested. Because PIA is a pacing airport, the congestion contributes to delays throughout the national airport system. Three alternatives, including a No Action Alternatives, are considered in detail in this final EIS. Action Alternative A, which is the preferred alternative, would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) and one cross-wind runway (17-35) by adding a new runway and extending runways 8-26 and 9L-27R to the east. Alternative B would provide for four parallel runways (8-26, 9L-27R, 9C-27C, and 9R-27L) by adding by adding a new runway, extending Runway 8-26 to the west, and extending Runway 9R/-27L to the east. Both build alternatives also would include reconfiguration of the associated taxiways, relocation of navigational aids and the air traffic control tower, and reconfiguration of the terminal complex. Under both action alternatives, terminal space would be expanded, from 2.5 million square feet to 3.6 million square feet in seven terminals under Alternative 8, and from 2.5 million square feet in seven terminals to 3.8 million square feet in four terminals. Costs of alternatives A and B are estimated at $5.35 billion and $5.59 billion, respectively. Construction is projected to begin in 2013 and be completed in 2025. POSITIVE IMPACTS: Either action alternative would enhance airport capacity during all weather conditions, thereby reducing total delays, the costs associated with delays and PIA's contribution to delays in the national airspace system. The improved facility would complement the New York/New Jersey/Philadelphia Metropolitan Airspace Redesign project and significantly improve airspace interactions and linkages within the region. NEGATIVE IMPACTS: Implementation of the preferred alternative would result in the loss of 82 acres of wetlands, 23 acres of waterways, and 24.5 acres of the Delaware River. Construction would take place in a 100-year floodplain. Significant noise impacts would affect 832 people in 330 housing units in 2025 and 1,196 people in 497 housing units in 2030. Both build alternatives would require the closure of Hog Island Road and relocation of a section of freight track, one of the Sunoco fuel loading piers, and a United Parcel Service facility. Alterative A would also require relocation of one of the dredge dewatering cells at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Fort Mifflin Dredge Disposal Facility. LEGAL MANDATES: Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982 (P.L. 97-248), Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (42 U.S.C. 7506(c) (1)), and Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.). PRIOR REFERENCES: For the abstract of the draft EIS, see 08-0374D, Volume 32, Number 4. JF - EPA number: 100334, Final EIS--CD-ROM, August 19, 2010 PY - 2010 VL - 75 KW - Air Transportation KW - Airports KW - Aircraft Noise KW - Disposal KW - Dredging KW - Navigation Aids KW - Noise Assessments KW - Noise Standards Violations KW - Railroads KW - Roads KW - Terminal Facilities KW - Traffic Control KW - Transportation KW - Weather KW - Pennsylvania KW - Airport and Airway Improvements Act of 1982, as amended, Project Authorization KW - Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, Emission Standards KW - Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972, Section 404 Permits UR - http://libproxy.lib.unc.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/873128191?accountid=14244 L2 - http://vb3lk7eb4t.search.serialssolutions.com/?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&rfr_id=info:sid/Environmental+Impact+Statements%3A+Full+Text&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book&rft.genre=report&rft.jtitle=&rft.atitle=&rft.au=&rft.aulast=&rft.aufirst=&rft.date=2010-08-19&rft.volume=&rft.issue=&rft.spage=&rft.isbn=&rft.btitle=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.title=PHILADELPHIA+INTERNATIONAL+AIRPORT+CAPACITY+ENHANCEMENT+PROGRAM%2C+PHILADELPHIA%2C+PENNSYLVANIA.&rft.issn=&rft_id=info:doi/ LA - English DB - ProQuest Environmental Science Collection N1 - Name - Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Camp Hill, Pennsylvania; DOT N1 - Date revised - 2010-10-01 N1 - SuppNotes - Final. Preparation date: August 19, 2010 N1 - Last updated - 2011-12-16 ER -